<<< Back to ACCSH: Transcripts |
Printing Instructions |
ACCSH Transcripts: September 14, 2000
|
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CONSTRUCTION SAFETY AND HEALTH
(ACCSH)
VOLUME I of II
Thursday, September 14, 2000
Holiday Inn Capital at the Smithsonian
550 C Street, Southwest
Discovery II Conference Room
Washington, D.C.
P R E S E N T |
Advisory Council Members Present:
Michael Buchet
National Safety Council
Stephen J. Cloutier
Charlotte, North Carolina
Stephen D. Cooper
Intl. Assoc. of Bridge,
Structural & Ornamental Ironworkers
Felipe Devora, Safety Director
Fretz Construction Company
Larry Edginton
International Union of Operating Engineers
Harry Payne
Commissioner of Labor, North Carolina
William Rhoten
United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters
Bob Biersner
Solicitor's Office
Russell B. Swanson
Designated Federal Official
Marie Haring Sweeney
National Institutes of Occupational
Safety and Health
Jane F. Williams
A-Z Safety Resources, Inc.
Owen Smith, President
Anzalone & Associates
Stewart Burkhammer, Acting Chairman
Bechtel Corporation
Thursday, September 14, 2000
A G E N D A |
|
PAGE |
8:00 to 8:30 |
|
Sign-In |
8:30 |
Welcome, Introduction
Stewart Burkhammer, Acting Chair |
4 |
8:45 |
Paperwork Reduction
Barbara Bielaski; Todd Owen |
9 |
ACCSH Workgroup Report |
9:00 |
Musculoskeletal Disorders
Marie Haring Sweeney; Michael Buchet |
19 |
Special Presentation |
9:15 |
Maritime Advisory Committee |
27 |
|
For Occupational Safety and Health (MACOSH)
Update and Maritime Ergonomics Study
|
|
|
Larry Reed; Jim Thornton; Chico McGill;
Steve Hudock; Cherie Fairfield Estill;
Leslie McDonald, Karl Sigfried |
|
10:30 |
BREAK |
|
ACCSH Workgroup Reports
|
97 |
10:45 |
Data Collection
Mike Buchet; Marie Haring Sweeney;
Suzanne Marsh |
97
|
11:30 |
Jane Williams; Steve Cooper;
Cathryn Goedert |
|
12:15 |
Lunch on your own |
148 |
1:00 |
Fall Protection
Felipe Devora |
150 |
2:30 |
BREAK |
|
2:45 |
Directorate of Construction Standards
Update
Noah Connell |
176 |
ACCSH Workgroup Reports Continued
|
|
|
PAGE |
Special Presentation
|
3:15 |
Communication Tower Erection
Kevin Beauregard; Harry Payne;
Thomas Marple |
190 |
4:30 |
Adjourn |
|
Welcome, Introductions
MR. BURKHAMMER: Welcome to the fall ACCSH meeting. We will start by going
around the room and introducing ourselves. Jane, will you start please.
MS. WILLIAMS: Jane Williams, A to Z Safety, Scottsdale, Arizona, public
representative.
MR. COOPER: Steve Cooper, Ironworkers.
MR. RHOTEN: Bill Rhoten, Plumbers and Pipe Fitters International.
MR. SMITH: Owen Smith, Paintings Contractor, California.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Stu Burkhammer, ACCSH Chair.
MS. SHERMAN: Susan Sherman, Solicitors Office.
MR. CLOUTIER: Steve Cloutier, Employer's Rep out of Charlotte, North
Carolina.
MR. DEVORA: Felipe Devora, Employer Rep out of Houston, Texas.
MR. EDGINTON: Larry Edginton, International Union of Operating Engineers.
MR. BUCHET: Michael Buchet, National Safety Council Public Representative.
MS. SWEENEY: Marie Haring Sweeney, National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health.
MR. BURKHAMMER: All right. We've got a sound problem this morning, so when
the Committee wishes to speak please get a microphone in front of you and speak
as clearly as possible so the court reporter can take notes. Also, make sure all
of you have a name tag handwritten.
Now, we will start in the audience. Why don't we start over here on the
right, please.
[The audience was introduced.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: The exits are behind you. There are two exits behind you.
There's an exit here on the left. The restrooms are out the door down to the
left. And in case of an emergency there is an exit out the glass doors just to
the right and it takes you out to the street.
Bruce Swanson isn't with us this morning, so Jim Boom is the designated
federal representative for this meeting until Bruce gets here. The bouncer in
the back of the room, Bill Smith, he is going to take care of anybody that shows
late or tries to leave early.
[Laughter.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: As some of you may know, one of our ACCSH members, Danny
Evans, passed away between the last meeting and now, and, in honor of him I
would like to have a moment of silence, please.
[A moment of silence was observed.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Thank you.
If you will get out the minutes from the last meeting. Do you have any
comments or concerns about the minutes? Any changes?
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: If not, I will entertain a motion to approve.
MR. CLOUTIER: So moved.
MR. BURKHAMMER: The motion is seconded. All in favor of approving the minutes
from the May 4th and 5th meeting signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of Ayes.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Opposed.
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Minutes approved.
If you would get out your agenda we have some things I want to add. At 11:30,
OSHA Form 170 is going to have a motion so be prepared for that.
One o'clock-fall protection we have 10 motions to review and discuss so that
is going to take a while.
We're also going to have at 4:30 public comment. If any of the people here
would like to make a comment, please put it on a card or a sheet of paper, pass
it up to me and we will call on you at the public comment period at 4:30.
On Friday, we've got a motion on the ACCSH committee procedures and
guidelines and we'll have public comment at 11:55 on Friday. So, again, anybody
wishing to comment at that time on Friday please pass a note up to me and we
will call on you on that day. If you want to give me a note today for Friday,
that's fine. Just mark the day you want to speak.
With that, Barbara and Todd, are you ready to talk to us about paperwork
reduction?
This is nice. We don't have the automatic machine running up and down the
halls on the outside delivering mail.
MS. BIELASKI: Good morning everyone.
[Chorus of good morning.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Good morning. Yes. Please speak into it and give us your name
before you start for the court reporter.
MS. BIELASKI: I am Barbara Bielaski. We come before you this morning to thank
you for your past assistance that you have given us in the area of paperwork
reduction and to ask for more help.
We have been trying to reduce the paperwork burden in construction rules
since somewhere in the mid-80s and I guess we have been before the Advisory
Committee three or four times. Most recently, we came down and asked about the
revocation of certain certification records and it was with the Committee's
recommendation that we not revoke those certification records, but in fact that
we add some new ones for the training certification.
Since that time we had a meeting. We had a roundtable discussion over at OMB
and some of the Committee members participated in that discussion. And as a
result of that discussion --
MR. BURKHAMMER: Excuse me, Barbara. Could you talk more into your mike,
please?
THE REPORTER: It's not that, sir. The mike is just not working.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Oh, the mike is not working.
Go ahead.
MS. BIELASKI: So, on April 27th, OMB held an information seminar
on ways to reduce information, collections of information and OSHA participated
by chairing a roundtable discussion on certifying regulatory compliance. And out
of that came a number of recommendations. And we put out a report which I think
has been sent to all the Committee members. But I did bring some extra ones
today just in case.
One of the recommendations and one of the actions -- let me start over here.
One of the recommendations is that rather than simply look at revoking record
requirements, certification records, or paperwork requirements, that we look at
the underlying provisions that in some cases the rules are so old that
provisions are out of date. Perhaps we are requiring inspections of equipment or
machinery too frequently. Maybe we should look at changing that in some cases.
I know there are a number of inspections associated with cranes. Should we
reduce that number? If we reduce that number, that, in turn, reduces the number
of records. In the health area there could be some -- I do not know if you can
think of some off the top of your head --
MR. OWEN: Yes, there are several. One example would be compliance plans. On
certain standards, you have to review them every six months. In other standards
you do them annually. There are some other frequencies, requirements in some of
the other standards that are in our current paperwork packages that when we
review we have to determine if they still have practical utility. So those are
some of the other health standards that we might -- or health issues that we
might be looking at.
MS. BIELASKI: Power and industrial trucks is another example where there are
a number of records required. There's a record required to certify that you have
been trained, that you have been retrained, that you have been -- that someone
has observed your actions, so there are a number of records in that one. So what
we want to do now is to ask the Advisory Committee to designate either an
existing workgroup or a new workgroup to work with us, and as we prepare the
supporting statements, the justifications to renew our clearance at OMB on these
paperwork requirements, these collection of information requirements, that we
could work with the workgroup in taking a look at these underlying provisions to
see whether or not they are in need of revision.
We did have a workgroup sometime back. I do not know if it is still -- it's
Jane and Steve, I think, and maybe Owen.
MR. BURKHAMMER: I think that workgroup was finalized and we bagged it.
MS. BIELASKI: So, basically, that is what we are looking for today. We are
asking if you could set up a workgroup that we can work with. We have something
like 30 cases that involve construction rules.
MR. OWEN: Mr. Chairman?
MR. BURKHAMMER: Mr. Owen. Or Mr. Cooper I'm sorry.
MR. COOPER: Barbara, would you explain to the Committee and to the audience
your mandated requirements under OMB on paperwork reduction? It is not just an
idea that it is a good idea, but you have requirements which you did not mention
under OMB to get the paperwork reduction done.
MS. BIELASKI: The Paperwork Reduction Act, the first one was passed in 1980,
was amended in '86, and we had a new one in 1995, and all of them essentially
require a reduction in paperwork that would require that the federal government
reduce the burdens imposed on the public. We had a goal of reducing our
paperwork by 25 percent and that started in 19 -- it was based on our baseline
in 1995. We have actually met our reduction.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Jane?
MS. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, at the conclusion of the ACCSH report that we did
prior, we stated, knowing Barbara was going to be progressing into other areas,
that the recommendation from the Committee that was adopted concluded the
portion that we were doing at that time. However, the Committee stated that they
would welcome the opportunity to continue to work with them and the efforts that
they had outlined would be forthcoming in the workgroup. Myself and Mr. Cooper
did attend the symposium that was held in regard to that workgroup and then
provided a report on that to this Committee.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Steve?
MR. COOPER: I'm sure everyone on the Committee supports the efforts towards
paperwork reduction, but you have got to keep in mind that a lot of his
paperwork that the agency is trying to reduce is self-induced. We have advice
coming from this Committee to the various departments and when we get it back it
is different than what we said. I realize that the solicitors have to make sense
out of it and do -- and put it together, but a large volume of this paperwork
does not come from this Committee or standards that we propose. It comes to the
backside, your side. I am in favor of anything you promote. And as you're
promoting a committee to look into this crane certification and other areas, I
think all of us certainly promote that.
But the backside is where all this text comes from. Not this side of the
table; it is coming from the Agency.
MS. BIELASKI: I guess I better not argue with you.
[Laughter.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Larry.
MR. EDGINTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It seems to make sense to follow up
with a request and have a workgroup responsible for that. And having said that,
as you know, we have a workgroup taking a look at Subpart N now. As Barbara
said, there are numerous certification requirements associated with that, and we
are reviewing that in its totality. So it would seem to me to make sense that
anything associated with cranes ought to go into the work of the subpart N.
workgroup in some way rather than having that workgroup charging off on its own
in terms of taking a look at certification requirements associated with cranes.
I would suggest that we just defer all of that to the crane work group as
part of our deliberations.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Larry, where is your workgroup?
MR. EDGINTON: Where we are at this point in time, we are further along than
we have been in the past. We now have a rough outline of what we think proposed
new standards should look like in terms of just a wide range of subject matter.
We will be meeting again either October 24th or 25th for an all-day meeting
where we are now in the process of looking at just keeping certain language,
adopting industry consensus language, and/or drafting new language out of whole
cloth.
So we are much further along than we were before. That is sort of in summary
fashion.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Barbara, do you have a deadline that you would like the
workgroup to respond back to you or work with you in getting this accomplish?
MS. BIELASKI: No. Let me just give you a little idea how this works. We have
20 or so cases that involve construction rules and they expire at different
times. Whenever we prepare a request to OMB to review and approve the
collections they give us anywhere from 18 months to three-year approval. So as
these come up for renewal, then we would work with the Committee. So they are
spread out over three years. So if we have 20 cases, there might be, you know,
10 cases next year and 15 the year after, or whatever.
The first cases that we actually would like to have the workgroup to help us
with is they deal with cranes and they are due in August. They expire August of
2001. And so we would -- normally we start the process about seven months ahead
of time, so to involve the Advisory Committee -- and I should mention that we
are involving all the Advisory Committees, Maritime for the Maritime Rules, and
NACCSH for the general industry rules.
So we would start probably by January. And we would want to give the
completed paperwork package to the workgroup. But if the workgroup meets ahead
we could do that. We can adjust to fit any schedule that you can provide to us.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Jane?
MS. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, as chair of the workgroup that was originally
working with this project, the reason that I started attending the crane
workgroup with Larry was one of the first issues we addressed was the
certification process. And I have continued in that workgroup repeatedly to see
when we get to that part what would happen with that to keep that data
information flowing. So I can see, like Larry is saying, that would be one of
the first things to tackle.
The second was, we were concerned that we recognized that the forms employers
are using, they are self-inducing a lot of their own requirements because they
are trying to cover every base they think OSHA wants. So we also suggested that
we come up with a unified form possibly that the world knows is what OSHA is
looking for. And it would really reduce the 10 to 15 pages of information we're
giving on our own as an employer because we think that is what you want.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Any other comments or questions?
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Okay. Thank you.
I guess it makes sense since Jane and Steve are doing Form 170. Paperwork
reduction kind of goes a little bit along with that. So why don't we just make
that part of 170?
MS. BIELASKI: Thank you.
MR. BURKHAMMER: And you can work with Larry in cranes and some of the other
workgroups that apply to some of the other standards that are working. And work
with Barbara and Todd. So it is Jane Williams and Steve Cooper.
MS. BIELASKI: Thank you.
MR. COOPER: Mr. Chairman?
MR. BURKHAMMER: Yes.
MR. COOPER: We will ensure that Barbara and Todd are invited to our workgroup
to assist.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Excellent. Thank you.
Now, we'll get into the Committee reports. Musculoskeletal disorder. Maria
and Michael.
ACCSH WORKGROUP REPORT
MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS |
MS. SWEENEY: Just a second, Mr. Chairman. We are booting up. We do not have a
plug, so we have to work on batteries.
Yesterday, we had a very interesting musculoskeletal workgroup meeting. We
had approximately 30 attendees in a very warm room and it was amazing everybody
stayed awake. We had three different issues we talked about. The first
presentation we had described an ergonomic invention intervention research study
that is now being conducted collaboratively by NIOSH and the Maritime industry,
and a description of a new NIOSH study to be conducted in the construction
industry to look at new solutions and existing solutions. Both of these studies
will be presented to the full committee after this report.
The second topic was to provide a forum for the authors of two letters, one
sent to the Assistant Secretary and the other to Michael Buchet, the co-chair of
this committee, in response to the draft brochure that the Committee submitted
to OSHA last year. One letter was in response to the letter submitted to the
Assistant Secretary to present alternative views. And in response to those,
there was rather lengthy discussion about the letters, about the draft brochure.
And the resolution of that was that the co-chairs, Michael Buchet and I, we're
going to consider revising the document between now and the next workgroup
meeting and also bringing that document back to the workgroup in another form,
looking at the format, editing the document, et cetera. So that is what we would
like to do.
MR. BUCHET: The intent of bringing that back is we have committed the
December workgroup meeting to going through the brochure once again with an eye
towards possibly making further recommendations as to its contents, style,
distribution, audience, et cetera, to the Agency.
MS. SWEENEY: Right. The third issue was a discussion or presentation by Dr.
Stephen Grennan from work safe, back safe --
MR. BUCHET: Back at work.
MS. SWEENEY: -- back at work. And Mr. Bob Timmens from Clark Construction. In
this presentation Dr. Grennan presented a program that he has introduced to a
number of worksites. It is a stretch and strengthening program and they are now
doing it on Clark Construction at the FBI training facility. But that is being
constructed, I guess.
This program is being conducted ostensibly to reduce musculoskeletal
disorders, but, in my opinion, not to change, necessarily change the design of
the workplace. And we had some large discussion after that. It was -- the
presentation was requested by Dr. Grennan a couple of months ago. We thought
that this might be informative as an alternative and more information to the
workgroup about musculoskeletal disorders and some of the ways that people are
trying to resolve this grave issue. That is the end of my report, Mr. Chairman.
MR. BUCHET: One of the constant things that we have done in the workgroup is
to invite the industry to bring forward examples of successful interventions.
Now, the definition "successful" is a little loose, but if people
believed it helped on their worksites, we asked them to bring it forward. And
Dr. Grennan and Bob Tims, from Clark, apparently have seen results that they
consider favorable. And we re-expressed that invitation. Please bring that to the
workgroup and let us try and provide some form of clearinghouse activity out
reach.
The other thing we asked for is absolute flops. If it didn't help the
workers, if it cost too much, if it slowed down production, we can make a list
of those and pass them out. Thank you.
MR. BURKHAMMER: That's it?
MS. SWEENEY: That's it.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Discussion?
MR. BURKHAMMER: Jane.
MS. WILLIAMS: In your meetings, had you ever gotten to the point where you
think you'll be looking at any kind of economic analysis of any of the issues
that you've talking about? Or is that way down the road at some point time?
MS. SWEENEY: That is a good suggestion. We have not thought about doing that
right now.
MS. WILLIAMS: That is one of the comments that you will hear me make in
regards to the other conversation that Mr. Jeffress has asked us to discuss. And
I wonder at what point if that's an issue your workgroup would be looking at,
the feasibility of it, or would that go to another process is what I would be
asking.
MR. BUCHET: The invitation that we have posed and keep posing again includes
if you have any kind of financial or economic data that you want to share,
please bring it. We have not set out to do an analysis -- to take an
intervention and do an analysis on the intervention and see. But what we asked
for loosely is, if it works, how can you tell it works? Well my work comp rate
went down, my work comp cost went down. And those are things that we will accept
anecdotally as saying this is an idea the workgroup could pass on.
MS. WILLIAMS: So, you do envision your workgroup expanding as maybe a process
should move or will you culminate your tasks? I think what I'm looking at is,
will we have at some point a construction ergo workgroup specific for task
oriented construction, economics and tasks, versus it being part of yours? I am
wondering if at some point we will leave your work and go to another?
MR. BUCHET: Without a great deal of reflection, it seems a natural extension
of what we're doing since we have been asking for that information all along.
MS. WILLIAMS: That's what I wanted.
MR. BUCHET: But when we might get to it, we won't predict.
MS. WILLIAMS: I have a suggestion, Mr. Chairman. We can look outside to see
whether or not there are folks that have actually done some studies that looked
at costs and cost benefit analysis or done interventions that actually have
monetary value or have a monetary analysis to it. And we will project that for
the future.
MR. BURKHAMMER: So just to make sure I understand, what you're doing, and the
Committee understands, you're going to take the draft in its current form that
is on the OSHA web page, bring it back to workgroup, while leaving it on the web
page --
MS. WILLIAMS: That's correct.
MR. BURKHAMMER: -- and take a look at various parts of it. Right?
MR. BUCHET: I do not think we're bringing it back in any sense. This is not
saying that OSHA cannot work on what it has. If we recall, the original motion
was in, I think, four parts. Part of it was that the workgroup continued to
refine the information that was in that document with OSHA and the workgroup
decided that the document needs some editorial work. It certainly needs
graphics. And Lauren Wolf did almost a line-by-line read through of it and has
given us some very good points that we need to work on. And this is a
continuation of the original motion.
So I don't know what the emphasis is on taking it back, but it is going to
stay there.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Okay. So you're just going to continue to work on it?
MR. BUCHET: Just continue working on it.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Very good. Any other discussion? Jane.
MS. WILLIAMS: Is it still my understanding that the original intent of the
document was to assist OSHA in developing a brochure of some kind, pamphlet,
brochure, whatever word we wish to use. Mr. Swanson, is that still part of your
process, that you are utilizing some of this information just for you to create
a brochure or information?
MR. SWANSON: It is still the Agency's intention to use this document for a
brochure, yes. I do not know if an explanation is necessary or not, but let me
give one anyway. We have another ergo issue going on in the department which
maybe some of you may have heard about. It has absorbed an awful lot of our
resources, so we are not where we would like to be on this brochure for
construction, but we will get there.
MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR. BURKHAMMER: For the record, Bruce Swanson is back as the designated
federal official replacing Jim Boom.
MR. SWANSON: May I say, I apologize, Mr. Chairman, for my tardiness. But both
candidates for the U.S. Senate for the State of Virginia have assured me that
they are looking into my commute problems so this might not happen again.
[Laughter.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Moving right along. Any other comments on the musculoskeletal
disorder workgroup report?
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Thank you for the report, co-chairs.
We are now at the point of our agenda where we have Mr. Larry Reed from NIOSH
and his cast of thousands. He is going to come up and share with us a very
interesting presentation which some of us got to hear a little bit of yesterday.
So the front table has to leave.
MR. REED: Thank you, Stu. We brought along the cast of thousands because we
heard that you had Starbucks coffee. And it is wonderful. I can learn from you
how you did that.
Members of the Committee and members of the audience, it is a pleasure and an
honor to be here today. I am here as both the chairperson for the Maritime
Advisory Committee, MACOSH, sister agency or, excuse me, sister organization
similar to ACCSH and also here as head of the engineering ergonomics -- excuse
me, engineering and physical hazards branch where we have some ongoing
activities in ergonomics.
Two primary tasks I wanted to talk about today. One is MACOSH collaboration
with ACCSH. There clearly are some commonalities between the two industries,
that is, the Maritime industry, primarily the shipyard industry, as well as the
construction industry. We thought we could develop some collaboration between
the two committees and take advantage of each other's expertise and develop some
synergy where it is possible.
The second aspect of my discussion today -- and this is where the cast of
thousands, as Stu mentioned, would come in -- and that is to talk about
ergonomics projects, one about the ongoing maritime ergonomics project as well
as a new project within NIOSH on ergonomics in the conjunction industry.
Principally, we're going to be hearing from three different sets of speakers
after me, and my discussion will be just a few moments. Steve Hudock and Carl
Siegfried will talk with you about the maritime ergonomics project that has been
ongoing for about two years and is about two-thirds completed.
Jim Thornton and Chico McGill are here from MACOSH to talk about their
projects within the Committee as well as their sense of the ergonomic maritime
project.
Then, finally, Cheri Estill and Leslie McDonnell are here to talk about the
ergonomics project in the construction industry, one that is just beginning in
this area.
First about MACOSH, who we are and what we do. We are paralleled in
construction -- excuse me, in terms of makeup similar to ACCSH, a mix of labor,
management, trade associations, as well as government agencies.
What we do. Our tasks are, again, similar to you. We advise OSHA in the area
of regulatory modifications as well as take on tasks that may not lead to any
regulatory impact but certainly have impact on worker safety and health in the
maritime industry.
Possibilities for collaboration. We have had some ongoing dialogue already
with Stu Burkhammer in this area and we would like to establish some kind of
liaison. The details of that are yet to be worked out between the two
committees. Some possible areas of commonality: fall protection, noise
reduction, electrical safety, training in outreach, and Stu mentioned yesterday,
confined spaces, obviously is a critical issue in the shipbuilding industry as
well as the construction industry.
A little bit about MACOSH products. Over the past couple of years -- by the
way, we are -- our charter is two years and I think one of the differences -- I
don't see Susan Sherman here anymore -- she's here. She can correct me if I'm
wrong, but, we are -- MACOSH is more of a discretionary committee. We are
chartered at the discretion of the Director of OSHA, so our survival is
contingent upon producing products, and we have been fairly productive of the
last few years. So we hope to remain so to keep the charter alive.
Some of the recent products: training and outreach initiatives. And this may
affect the construction industry as well. But we have heard in the Committee
that there is an issue of the level playing field in terms of enforcement and
compliance in the maritime industry, particularly the shipyard industry. So we
have developed some training and outreach initiatives that address the issue of
training compliance officers to help them understand the maritime industry
better.
We also developed a draft standard as well as preamble for the occupational
safety and health programs and the issue behind this, as you will here in just a
moment regarding ergonomics, the issue behind this safety and health programs
standard -- draft standard that we developed, is that we wanted to take charge
of our own destiny within the maritime industry and not let a one-size-fits-all
standard be in place.
Proposed revisions to maritime standards is a generic issue regarding
updating and revising relevant standards in the maritime industry. I presume
similar actions take place here within this committee.
And then finally, a maritime ergonomics project that we are providing
oversight and guidance to that is a mix, as Marie said, of both NIOSH research
scientists, in particular. We have Steve Hudock here as a co-project officer,
but also representing the maritime industry and in particular the shipyard
industry. Karl Sigfried is here representing that group. They are co-project
directors of this project.
Just a little bit about the maritime ergonomics project. Steve and Karl will
talk in more detail in just a moment, but I wanted to emphasize the
collaborative nature of this. It took us about a year -- a couple of years, and
when you see the timeline to get all the players in alignment, all of the
planets together, if you will, making sure that everybody was on board with the
study, labor, management, government, in this case of NIOSH scientists taking a
role in the study and trade associations.
Once there was the level of comfort developed that the product would be a
user-friendly cost-effective set of ergonomic solutions, best practices, what
have you, then we began the project.
The primary product, as I mentioned a moment ago, is guidelines of the best
ergonomic practices for the shipyard industry focusing on engineering solutions.
We wanted to hit an area where we would have the most bang for the buck and we
thought engineering solutions would be the way to go in terms of hierarchy of
controls.
It is also important to emphasize that this project -- the study, the
ergonomic study in the maritime industry -- is not leading to a draft standard.
It is simply recommendations for the industry. And Steve and Karl attend every
MACOSH meeting they had for the past at least year and a half now updating the
Committee every time we meet on the status of the project.
A short history of the project. It originated as an industry idea. The
acronym NSRP stands for the National Shipbuilding Research Program. And I want
to emphasize this because it was not a NIOSH driven idea in the beginning. It
was an industry driven idea. And the key here is that the industry, particularly
the shipyard industry, wanted to take destiny in its own hands. It wanted to
take control of its own destiny. They were unhappy with the first iteration of
the OSHA standard in the early '90s and this is the shipyard's industry's way of
taking control of their own destiny. It was a small funded project out of NSRP.
NSRP is a grouping of shipyard builders that fund projects of interest in the
area.
The project was funded and awarded to Bath Ironworks. Karl Sigfried, in fact,
who is here this morning, was the ergonomist at the time with Bath Ironworks
with 20 years experience at BIW. MACOSH became involved because of members who
are on NSRP, including Chico McGill, who is also here this morning, and brought
the idea to MACOSH. The NIOSH became interested and involved a year later by way
of MACOSH in 1998. Funding is from an external source, primarily it's a DOD
funding. It's through a mechanism called Ameritech, ASAE.
And, finally, the last item on the board, NMSA, is an acronym standing for
the National Maritime Safety Association. They represent longshoring interests.
And, originally I mentioned that it was only a shipyard study. And the full
maritime area represents both shipyards and longshoring. They were not -- they
did not embrace the study in the beginning, however, last fall Steve and I got
them to agree to come on board in terms of a longshoring commitment to the
study. So now it is a full maritime study.
Project leadership. I mentioned earlier the next speakers will be Steve
Hudock and Karl Sigfried, again, representing both government research agency
NIOSH as well as industry interests.
What I want to have today is not only dialogue on discussion about the
summary of the maritime ergonomic study, but also a discussion about partnership
with ACCSH on the new NIOSH construction and ergonomic study that will be
parallel and to some extent, after the ergonomics maritime study that you will
here about in just a moment. Cherie Estill and Leslie McDonnell will talk about
this new study that will begin in our fiscal year 2001, which starts October
1st.
I will just spend a moment on this issue and paralleled in a sense that the
product is going to be a set of -- I'm not sure what we will call it, best
ergonomic practices or solutions or another term that I have forgotten from
yesterday when I attended the musculoskeletal workgroup. But again, the
take-home message is that this is a set of guidelines for the industry. It is
not a draft standard.
And the other dialogue that I guess I will have ongoing in the future with
Stu Burkhammer's possible collaborations, maybe mutual committees of common
interests in other areas, fall protection, electrical safety, confined spaces,
and the like. So with that, does the Committee have any questions of me? Yes.
MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. One question I have. I'm very interested in your
comments that it is not a draft standard. And you're looking at guidelines which
is where I think a lot of this needs to be personally. Do you see the guidelines
being language that you hope someday will be the governing documents that you
would or you would not even have the need for standard making?
MR. REED: That is a question that is probably better asked of OSHA. When we
finish the product, the guidelines, we we'll pass the product on to OSHA as well
as we will probably pass the product on to OSHA through MACOSH since they have
been our advisory, you know, in an advisory role to the NIOSH NSRP study all
along. What OSHA does with that, I guess, would be up to them. But I guess
anything is a possibility. I don't know if anyone from OSHA is here and would be
willing to talk or respond to that.
[Laughter.]
MS. WILLIAMS: Do you believe that MACOSH recommendations would be or could be
to have this as guidelines versus a standard? Do you think this is -- this is
what I'm hearing you say you are leaning towards.
MR. REED: I would prefer to have the Committee -- it is a bit of a conflict
with me because I am here not only as a NIOSH person and overseeing the
resources that is actually doing the study from the NIOSH perspective but also
here in a MACOSH role. So how the Committee chooses to pass this on with its
recommendation I think has yet to be determined. But I would say that is
certainly a possibility for consideration.
MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR. REED: Now, Jim Thornton and Chico McGill who are not shy individuals, are
going to follow me in a few moments. I'm sure we will have their strong
recommendations that they will want to express. Any other questions of the
Committee or of the audience?
[No response.]
MR. REED: Great. Next up, Steve Hudock and Karl Siegfried.
MR. HUDOCK: Good morning. Again, the name of the project is really ergonomic
interventions for the domestic maritime industries. As Larry mentioned, we have
started originally with a project in the ship construction industry and rapidly
found out that the ship repair yards did not concern themselves with the ship
construction yards and basically expanded into those areas as well. There are
now shipbreaking yards and we have expanded into that, and now also the
longshoring side.
As Larry mentioned, Karl Sigfried and myself are the co-project directors.
Karl is really the industry rep for the national shipbuilding research program,
and I am the NIOSH project officer for the project.
The project objective is really to determine the effectiveness of ergonomic
interventions for selective maritime processes. And what we really want to do is
to reduce the number and severity of injuries and lower the workers' comp costs
while at the same time improving process quality and productivity. We will sort
of go into some detail how we have done or at least looked at those aspects of
the project.
One may wonder why we want to look at the shipyard industry. In general,
besides the fact that it came to us from industry to begin with. Again, there's
some justification as to why we want to look at the industry. The top line in
blue is the recordable injury and illness rate for the shipbuilding industry
over the last 10 years from the Bureau of Labor Statistics information. You will
see a nice decline there in the shipyard industry or shipbuilding industry, but
you also see that their rates are easily three to five times higher than that of
both construction and general industry. So it appears that they were still a
good candidate for some intervention work within the shipbuilding industry.
That's what that top line is for.
The water transportation services, which is a green line in there with the
rest of them, really represents the longshoring side of the house.
Larry alluded to the scope of the project and just how many different
partners are involved. There are a number of different divisions within NIOSH
that have loaned individuals to us or loaned expertise to us and that is what
the acronyms out the top represent. The industry representatives besides the
shipyards themselves, that we will detail a little bit later. There's also a
number of associations within the industry, Ameritec, which is really the group
that took over the national shipbuilding research program, has sort of
disappeared in one spirit and has reemerged as Ameritech ASE and that is really
the funding mechanism that comes from Navy through them, and basically they are
a consortium of, I believe, the 12 large shipbuilding companies in United
States.
The Shipbuilder's Council of America represents the smaller shipyards. Again,
the National Maritime Safety Association is the longshoring association. Labor
has been wonderful to work with on this project. There are probably about 40
more unions that are not listed their because we do not have the space to list
them. Again, the boilermakers, electrical workers, metal trades council, and so
on, are in the different yards. I mean, there are other yards that have 12 or 13
unions within each yard and that have all bought into it. Again, it is just hard
to list them all again. It is just sort of a sample of the major yards that we
have run across.
The other two are the longshoring unions, the East Coast and West Coast
unions, government involvement is both from the NIOSH side, the OSHA side, and
the MACOSH side, as well as the customer side the U.S. Navy in the U.S. Coast
Guard as well.
There are really three phases to the project. The first one is really to
identify the partners are the processes that we want to look at within each one
of the yards. The second step is really to conduct ergonomic interventions
implementations, that is really the pointed we are at now. And the final phase
is really information and dissemination of getting out the information to
everybody in the industry.
The first thing that we wanted to do was to conduct a number of walk-through
surveys in a number of different yards. I think we went through somewhere
between 15 to 20 yards here in the States sort of soliciting their support for
the project and trying to see what kind of problems or the particular processes
within the industry, and take a look at really come up with some assessment of
what the physical risk factors were in the different processes within the
shipyards.
The second set was really to select some candidate facilities that we're
interested in actually going that next up into connecting ergonomic
interventions at their sites. And we are speeding through this and I want to
make sure that we get ample time for everybody else.
This is a list of our partners. Again, it is not meant for you to memorize
what they are. It is just a matter of I want to give you an idea sort of the
scope of the project. Again, we have construction yards, or repair yards,
shipbreaking yards, U.S. Navy yards, large yards, small yards, East Coast, West
Coast, South Coast, North Coast, you know. We try to get a cross-section of the
industry as much as possible. Again, we are just concentrating at this point on
the shipyard side not the longshoring side.
What we have done is really out of those seven yards actually we have eight
yards. We have sort of an alternate yard that we have done this at, is really
looked at their injury/illness databases, from our standpoint, we can go into
their OSHA 200 logs and try and identify where they have had problem areas or
problem processes based on the number and types of injuries that are occurring.
Again, we have gotten the information for the past five years, some from
1994, some for 1995 up looking at their OSHA 200 logs and identifying with their
worker hour rates that we have. We were able to come up with incident rates for
the particular types of injuries within different processes or within different
trades or within different departments.
And so we know how many back injuries are occurring to welders that are
working on new ship construction in a particular yard. And it helps us again to
target areas that we are looking at. That is not the only way we do that,
however. We also had the yards, both management and labor, come to us with their
sort of hit list of the top five errors that they thought were of concern in the
yard as well, and we tried to take a look at those objectively to see if they
were again sort of valid points to discuss or where they sort of flash in the
pan where they happen to have a large incidence within one year or something
like that, to see if it was a sustained problem or if there was just an acute
problem they had.
So, again, with input from as much factual information as we had from the
OSHA 200 logs plus the input from the management and labor, we decided to really
look at about five processes within these shipyards. And, again, by coming up
with this data, again, based off of the OSHA 200 information for the most part,
we were able to come up with at least a baseline of what kind of injury rates
are occurring for that process or that occupation or that department as much as
possible. And that helps us to come back after the interventions to assess the
effectiveness of those interventions that we have in place.
MR. BUCHET: Did you go to any external sources for information? Did you
compare this against State work comp records or CFOI or emergency room
admissions or --
MR. HUDOCK: All right. It depended on the yard itself. And again, some of the
yards gave us anything from nurses' reports, which are preliminary first aid
reports, up to OSHA 200 logs. We have workers' comp data from at least three of
the yards that are fairly complete, and so we are able to -- again, the yard is
considered a workers comp, more proprietary than a lot of places because of
bidding on jobs. And the way they can get bids is basically by undercutting
somebody else. And, again, workers' comp is a big issue in that case.
MR. BUCHET: I guess my intent was to ask, was all the information you used
voluntary or did you take the voluntarily submitted information and then use a
truth-teller to find out where they were? And my sense is, no, that this was all
voluntary information and you confined yourself to what the industry provided.
MR. HUDOCK: Right. But again, we went with what the industry provided on the
OSHA 200 logs, however volatile they are, and I'm not discussing that --
MR. BUCHET: That's not part of the question. MR. HUDOCK: -- and again, we did
get the input from management and labor as well, so we got their personal
perspective within the yard itself. And so, I am not sure what other site you
get to and public access to basically besides that and that kind of information.
MR. BUCHET: But the work comp data that you got was given to you by the yard
and said here, use this to help get a more precise picture?
MR. HUDOCK: Yes.
MR. BUCHET: That's terrific.
MR. HUDOCK: Yes. Again, were able to get that from some of the yards. Some of
the yards just were not willing to separate themselves from that data.
Mr. LIBERATOR: Let me add to that. Two things. I'm Larry Liberator. Before
they visited the yards, we contacted the longshoremen harbor workers'
compensation division, which has compensation data from many of the federal
yards. That data was available, but it did not have specific information that
would be helpful for this project. So they proceeded without that.
As far as the truth test, I think they spent a lot of time in talking with
the workers and if there is ever a truth test that is what it will be.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Carl Siegfried. I guess I would just like to add one more
comment. When it came to getting the data it did take some significant effort on
the part of MACOSH in order to make sure the shipyards were willing to share
this information with the project leaders. And with the construction project I
am sure that you folks will hold a very strong influence, at least I hope, with
the partners within your project to make sure that the folks realize that this
information is not being gathered and is going to be handed directly to OSHA for
any siding or for anything else like that.
It basically is purely information that we are using for baseline data. In
order for us to get some good ergonomic interventions in place we have to
establish a baseline where it is we are coming from to make sure that they are
effective, because if they are not effective those are the things that we are
going to also put in the report. So we plan on putting in both the good and bad
within the reports. So I would stress that we could do that and hopefully your
committee could do that too.
MR. HUDOCK: Some of the areas that we looked at within the shipyards and the
longshoring side as well came, for example, to the longshoring side the Dockside
workers, the crane operators, the tractor operators. We do not have shipboard
crew members up there for the longshoring side. Some of the shipyards, again,
have identified problems with pulling electric cable through the ship when they
are outfitting a ship, particularly a ship for the Navy. A 750-foot, 770-foot
destroyer, has literally hundreds of miles of cable anywhere from fiber-optic
cable to 400 cable, seven pounds per linear foot. There are runs of cable that
are 700 feet long at a time, so there is quite a problem just moving that cable
from one place to another within the ship.
Whenever there is steel construction, there's grinding for paint removal,
grinding for prior or after welding. Some of the problems were with overhead
insulation, and ventilation, both insulation and removal. Actually, one of the
interventions that we have going is looking at providing pneumatic shears for
cutting the insulation bats to size instead of using hand knives.
Power hand tool use again is rampant within the industry of both new
construction repair, shipbreaking. There's actually an instant case of using
power hand tools for the U.S. Navy at the Peugeot Sound Naval Shipyard. It is
taking nuclear submarines that are being decommissioned and basically cutting
apart everything on the inside with Milwaukee saws awls. And so you can imagine
how many -- I think throw out 60 saws a month and probably go through millions
of blades in a year. Again, just imagine what kind of vibration exposure they
have based on that.
One of the inventions that we have that we are looking at it is looking at
the vibration signatures of new tools versus tools are coming out of the tool
crib or the shops and seeing just what the differences are in what an advertised
tool puts out for vibration as opposed to one that is typically handed out
within the yard.
We had a project looking at welding in confined spaces. People are in
two-by-two-foot by 16-foot deep holes and they are basically welding back in
there. And if you are in the two-by-two foot section most people fill up that
two-by-two foot area pretty quickly, and there's just no way to get ventilation
back to where the person is doing the welding. So we took a look at that as
well.
These are sort of typical examples. From each yard there are different
examples. We did not want to have 70 examples of electricians. We have
electricians, welders, grinders, ship fitters, pipe fitters, what have you. We
try to get a broad range of the types of trades within the industry that we're
looking at.
MR. BUCHET: By any chance are you looking at shipyard carpenters? Because
they do a lot of stuff, would be very comparable to some of the stuff that we do
in construction. They are always building temporary structures or blocking in
heavy wood.
MR. HUDOCK: Right. Some of that -- again, that just has not appeared as a
major area compared to some of the others. Again, some of the outfitting work
for the bridges of the houses is at time subcontracted and that is a lot of the
internal carpentry work is done there. But a carpenter shop within the yards
building jigs for things like that was not a major concern in any the yards we
came across.
MR. BUCHET: Well, it depends what yards you're looking at. But certainly
something like Electric Boat, the carpenters do a great deal of work that you do
not think of as carpentry but looks a lot like construction work; scaffolding,
block and timber.
MR. HUDOCK: All right.
MR. SIEGFRIED: When you are talking about bloating out --
MR. BUCHET: Weather protection type, little house.
MR. SIEGFRIED: When they do come up on the hit list we will do that. See, the
whole idea here was to get four to five different areas within each shipyard
that we're looking at, and, as Steve spoke, try to make sure that we're looking
at different things. In the shipyards we have so many different jobs that are
very similar to what you folks are faced in construction. We have such a wide
range of jobs that there is no way that we can go in and actually fix every
single job in every single shipyard, nor is that our intent. But, hopefully, by
gathering seven to eight different yards and looking at four to five different
problems in each one of those yards we will have something that represents some
good best practices for the shipyards. But we certainly make no claim that we're
going to fix the entire shipbuilding process because that is more of a task than
what we set forth.
MR. HUDOCK: Again, if there's a point where we go through the yards and to
the point where you realize that we're missing a particular trade that is a
fairly a large trade within the yards, we will try to go back and identify
processes within that trade as well to make sure that we cover the whole gamut
of things.
MR. BUCHET: I guess in that one example it is not always a trade that is
doing the kind of work I'm talking about, depending on what yard you're in.
MR. SIEGFRIED: That is one of the difficulties that we have faced, because a
rigger at Bath Ironworks and a rigger at Newport News and a rigger down at
Engels are totally different things. So we have looked at that. That is why we
are trying to go job specific versus department specific.
MR. HUDOCK: What we have done in each these locations is really to perform a
quantitative ergonomic evaluation of each of the processes. It is a matter of
taking a lot of videotape, and running that videotape back in Cincinnati and
using our exposure assessment tools, a series of up to eight different check
lists, that we'll go through and basically comeback with a score for what that
process rates as far as risk factors are for that particular process as it
currently exists.
MS. SWEENEY: Steve, these checklists, can they be done? Can they be used by
people other than ergonomists or with an agronomist or with training?
MR. HUDOCK: They are all fairly simple checklists. It is a matter of knowing
how to do the analysis. I think that can be done with a matter of training
individuals as well. You do not necessarily have to have a college degree in
ergonomics to go out and do these checklists. It is a matter of being trained in
their usage.
MR. BUCHET: I guess our question is a couple of parts. One, can somebody use
the checklists relatively easily? The second part of the question is, how easy
it is, not necessarily that person but somebody else, to do the analysis? So if
the supervisor was given a checklist, and was told how to observe a check so
that then they go back to the trailer, and you have the general foreman or
somebody who is more prepared to do an analysis, we're looking for an efficient
system that could be brought over to a construction model.
MR. HUDOCK: Right. Again, one thing you can do is just videotape that same
scene, that the person on the scene makes sure it?s repeated for the next person
to see it. So it is possible that someone can go through the list again. How
each individual goes through the list is going to be different. There will be
intra and interpersonal differences on how --
MR. BUCHET: I think even with college degrees there are going to be
differences.
MR. HUDOCK: Right.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Ergonomists never disagree.
MR. BUCHET: In public.
[Laughter.]
MS. WILLIAMS: Do you have examples of the checklist that you might be willing
to share with the various groups?
MR. HUDOCK: We have a different checklist that we can give the background
literature for and the names we used. I'm sure we can make that available to the
Committee.
MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. I think that would be something to look at.
MR. SIEGFRIED: I would just like to say that some of the checklists that we
use are very simple and easy to go through and I am sure could be changed to a
point for your industry. I'm sure that Cheryl and Leslie will be all over that
to make sure that happens. But some of them are very complicated and some of
them will not be able to be done. But part of project also is to try to build up
ergonomic expertise within each of the shipyards that we're visiting. So we do
have people are working with us and hopefully by working with them we will bring
them along.
MR. HUDOCK: Again, the next step that really we're at right now is developing
those ergonomic interventions within each of the yards and really coming up with
things that are both economically and technically feasible as well as practical.
We cannot tell a shipyard to go and tear down their four buildings and rearrange
their production line and put it back together the way it should be. That is
just not going to happen. Although it is happening in some yards.
So, again, what we are looking at is ergonomic intervention. With the
workers' comp data that we have from the yards in general, we're able to combine
that into composite information and come up with at least estimates of what it
cost for those injuries. And again, putting an intervention in place again that
is sort of an estimate of even if we fix 10 percent of these problems we do run
a cost benefit analysis on the proposed interventions that we are putting in
place.
So we do have at least estimated data of how many injuries occurred in that
process, how many it -- again, we were saying 10 percent of that may be fixed by
the change. And they are coming up with cost benefit analysis for those
interventions. Again, that is at least a way to justify putting those
interventions in place.
The next and final phase is really going through and sharing that information
with the whole industry in a number of different ways. We have documents for
each of the site interventions that we have done. There is actually three
document to go with each shipyard site. There be a final sort of compendium of
these ergonomic solutions. We have a web site that we're still trying to get out
the door past a few people within NIOSH and that will be a public source of
information. So, again, a sort of clearinghouse of solutions: what has worked,
what has not work, what we have seen in other places besides the project as
well, as well as a place hopefully to put documents after they are finalized.
Again, that is something that we'll have based out of the NIOSH home page.
We will be conducting a post-intervention evaluations as well for each of the
facilities, just how these things have worked, has it speed up the line, has it
improved your quality, has it reduced your workers' comp cost for those
particular processes or departments or what have you.
MS. SWEENEY: Steve, is it on the Web yet?
MR. HUDOCK: It is inside our fire wall. So it is inside our Web but not
external yet. So it's just at the point of getting it out to the public. And
they are some changes that we made and then we will make it public.
MS. SWEENEY: Are you talking about the next quarter?
MR. HUDOCK: Hopefully. You know, probably by the end of the calendar year.
That is sort of our moving target date, depending on how many people we talk to.
Again, sort of the ultimate product of these are to come up with best
practices or guidelines for shipbuilding or ship repair, shipbreaking
industries. Whether that is one document or three documents, we have not figured
that out yet. Again, best practices for the longshoring side, cargo handling as
well as holding some workshops, highlighting the interventions. And actually we
do have the applied ergonomic conference coming up in March that we have a
shipyard panel at this year. So, again, it is just a matter of trying to get
these interventions out to the public in one format or another.
I guess that is really it.
MS. SWEENEY: Excuse me. How would you promote the type of meetings that
you're going to be having? Would you use the Internet or does it just -- where
can a public person find that information to possibly come in and listen to what
you're doing?
MR. HUDOCK: Within the maritime industries, at least, there are a number of
different formats. There are electronic newsletters, there are paper
newsletters, there are, again, Internet sites that are within the maritime
industry. There is NSNet, which is, again, an Internet site within the industry
besides the associations, besides the local unions that we are dealing with and
so on. So there are number of mechanisms that we have.
In the shipyard and really longshoring side of the industry we are fortunate
enough to have a finite number of employers. I mean, there are only so many
shipyards. There are only so many longshoring operations as opposed to
construction where there are orders of magnitude of more employers that the
shipyards have. So it is a fairly easy task to make sure everybody is aware of
that, whether it is a brochure, mailings, what have you. But it is easier to
handle within the maritime industries we see than in the construction.
MS. SWEENEY: So a common person could tie right into the net and it would be
on there?
MR. HUDOCK: Yes.
MS. SWEENEY: We could go to that web site and see a meeting listing or
something?
MR. HUDOCK: Right. They do have meeting listings for other meetings and so
on. Again, when we our web site up we'll have more project specific information
within that web site.
Again, the OSHA web site. Again, OSHA has a maritime site as well and that
information will be sort of co-posted on their site as well.
MR. BUCHET: I would like to revisit the assurance that you can get to
everybody. One of the problems in construction is that the industry can get to
some of the industry, but then below a certain point there are to be five, ten,
three, four, two people, and the maritime industry I think suffers from the same
problem. You have people working out of small boats, working out of pickup
trucks, working along riverbanks, doing barge work, doing some clean out work.
Have you figured out how to get to them or are you saying that you've gotten the
population that you can get to that you're getting to?
MR. HUDOCK: There are number of different mechanisms. There are number of
different trade associations that are there for the small repair yards. The
Shipbuilders Council of America, again, used to be also the National
Shipbuilders Association. There were two associations and they merged into one.
Again, they handle the smaller side of the house. Again, their membership may
not be complete, but, again, it is a way to get a fair percentage of those
individuals.
And, again, it is a matter that you can also go through. And again, we only
have so many States to deal with, again, either on the coast or near a lake.
MR. BUCHET: We're looking for help trying to figure out how to reach the ones
you can't reach through association.
MR. HUDOCK: Right. So, again, we have a finite number of that. We're dealing
with -- again, it's a little easier in our case than perhaps in yours.
I would like to turn it back to Larry and turn it over to the rest of our
cast of thousands.
MR. REED: Thanks, Steve and Karl. Next on the agenda is a brief overview
perspective by Jim Thornton and Chico McGill.
Just to refresh you, they are members of MACOSH, the labor management
representation, actually, management labor in that order. Jim is from Newport
News and Chico is with the IBEW. Without further ado, Jim and Chico.
MR. McGILL: I brought my prepared speech, by the way.
[Laughter.]
MR. McGILL: Brother Thornton, if you don't mind, I would like to --
MR. THORNTON: I yield to labor, of course.
[Laughter.]
MR. McGILL: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
First all, let me go ahead and say that Brother Thornton and I work very well
together as you can tell. But one of the things about the study that got us
going into this was the fact that when the first ergonomics stand was proposed I
think everybody knows how much heat came out of the oven for that.
One of the things we thought about at first was just how that would affect
our industry in and industry that really is -- has lost quite a bit of momentum
over the past 20, 30 years. There are six major yards now owned by three
companies. So, you know, the playing field is narrowed down quite a bit.
But the thing about it is, it is the idea of doing what they were going to do
was very cost prohibitive in shipbuilding, and would have really put us in a
bind in trying to go out and do this type of study that they want to do. So as
was indicated earlier, we decided that we wanted to take control of our own
destiny. One of the ways of doing that was, number one, to get ahead of the game
and to try to find a study somewhere that would actually give us the information
we're looking for.
Several questions have been asked as to how we will use this and what we are
going to do, you know, who puts in some of this information and what groups are
involve and just in particular in my shipyard this is just to -- this package
here is just the first two installments. Okay. From what was done in our
shipyard. And at our shipyard representatives from IBEW, which is an independent
group, but that Engel Shipbuilding and the Metal Trades Council, Harry Hinkley
was the safety and health representative for metal trades which makes up some 13
unions, a total all of Engels, went out and did the walk-through with the NIOSH
group, and, in particular, identified areas that we had great concern with in
the processes of building ships in the inner bottoms and things like that and,
in particular, in my world cable pulling and things about nature. It is very
open. It is very honest discussion. The input is very open from labor as well as
management, and it is a team product here that is done by both sides of the
fence.
One of the things that we learned from our confined space standard for
shipbuilding was the fact that if you get buy in from everybody from the very
beginning, it is much, much easier and more palatable to get everybody to accept
what is going on and to move forward with the processes. And so that was one of
the intentions that we had in mind. And that has worked very well together.
One thing that I will say when it comes down to labor management and safety,
there should be no barriers. There should always be cooperation on both sides of
the fence. That is something that everybody can live with and move forward with.
As a member of MACOSH, the idea of getting this information and what we will
do with it as far as the sheets for checklists and things of that nature, I
think the MACOSH Committee itself will make a determination once the final
product is delivered as to how we will develop checklists and how we will do
other things of that nature.
Those things are being used by the Agency right now, for NIOSH to do these
studies are in-house things that they have developed in ways that they can go
about trying to get down to the core of what some of the problems are. But when
that stuff is turned over to MACOSH, MACOSH will certainly sit down with this
group and come to a consensus on what it is that we need to develop as far as
checklists or anything else are concerned.
Web sites and things like that they are very accessible. The American
Shipbuilding Association which my brothers before me were trying to think of the
name of, they are the big yards; the Shipbuilders Council of America are the
little yards. So that is basically how that breaks down. But there is input from
both sides of that fence. So everybody is involved in there. And I can only
specifically speak for the shipbuilding side of the fence because I am not a
longshoring person. But certainly they have come on board with us in this study
and we are moving forward with it. Nobody likes to have something crammed down
your throat. And this was our answer to digesting something that is not crammed.
Okay? Put it on a plate, serve it to us, but don't make us to eat it.
[Laughter.]
MR. McGILL: That is the way we look at those kinds of things. I will tell you
that the recent letter that we received, August 9th, actually gives us a very
good recommendation as to what to do in form with our cable pulling and other
situations, and also comes enclosed with a lot of recommendations and how much
certain things cost and things of that nature, and cost reduction factors.
In the cable pulling itself, some of the implementation that they asked us to
look at doing would be very simple to do and will really reduce a lot of
musculoskeletal problems that we have in cable pulling, back injuries, strains,
things of that nature. Because as we say, you know, a piece of cable that is a
size 400 that is seven pounds a foot, you know, you are getting into some heavy
cable. But we have some big guys that can pull that stuff. But we're trying to
get out of having big people do it, and just have it done where it is done,
engineered where it is supposed to be done. You know, just like a hygienist when
he comes into the world such as Brother Thornton here, one of the things you
want to do is you get over it.
One of the things that you want to do is engineer those things out. You do
not want to have people running around with personal equipment on and other
stuff, you want to try and engineer those things out. And that is what they try
to do.
The one perspective from labor that I will go ahead and say is he is in doing
some of these things it might reduce some of my people on-site and that is
something that I have got to think about as far as a labor person goes.
But to reduce injuries, even if it cuts down on some of the manning level
that I have, to me, that is the achievement. Is to not have something where it
is based upon somebody dying to get something done. And that is what I look at
has been the big bonus point for these things.
And with that, I will go ahead and let Brother Thornton throw his management
side on you.
MS. WILLIAMS: If I might just ask quickly?
MR. McGILL: Sure.
MS. WILLIAMS: How do the workers seem to be responding to some of these
issues in the new ways of some of the things you're doing? Do they seem to be
very responsive, proactive? Are you getting some hesitancy from the old way
versus these proposals?
MR. McGILL: Well, the IBEW, and especially local 733 at Engels in Avondale,
which we represent, workers at both shipyards, and are just about to conclude a
contract negotiation in Avondale. But the thing of it is that they are very
supportive of the efforts that we make in safety, very much so. We have been
very active, proactive in safety since 1987 with the National Safety Council and
various other things. But we have also implemented a stretching program for
cable pullers. And they have very well received it. It is done during working
hours just before they start doing their regular jobs, and it has proven to be
quite a good situation as far as getting people conditioned and ready for the
job of the day; not just coming in and running out and grabbing things, but
actually starting to condition yourself a little bit before you go to work. And
I think that has been very well accepted. There has not been any problem with
that whatsoever.
And to be very honest with you, an electrician -- a first-class electrician
would love a cable puller to pull that cable anyway. They do not want to have to
do that.
[Laughter.]
MR. RHOTEN: If I could I just have one question. In regard to your safety and
health training programs, do you document how many hours of training or do you
have a curriculum that is established for craft? I am not really familiar with
the shipyard industry, but is there a documentation process so that you know
that each person working in the shipyard has a certain level of safety and
health training?
MR. McGILL: Certainly, each yard has its individual way of doing that. Some
are toolbox safety review things and stuff of that nature. You have certain
specific training, and things like that, when it comes down to using certain
equipment and things of that nature, there are things like that. But it is
dependent upon each yard as to what goes on.
MR. RHOTEN: The owner of the facility just puts together that particular
program that is necessary?
MR. McGILL: Yes. And we have a joint labor management safety committee and so
there is input from both sides of the fence in these areas which comes into play
very well. And plus the local union does safety training also. So there is a lot
of that that takes place.
MR. THORNTON: Let me piggyback on that. I can speak to our yard. We're one of
the few nuclear shipyards in the U.S., so qualifications and keeping track of
training and the like is very, very important, and so in our case we have a
system that keeps track of not only the skilled qualifications, if you will, but
also the safety and health training which is very important. So in our case it
becomes part of the personnel record.
MR. RHOTEN: So you have to document that the employees have in fact had
training in confined spaces for those kinds of things that you're working in?
MR. McGILL: Absolutely.
MR. THORNTON: And they are also a star shipyard, by the way, let me point
that out as long as you asked.
MR. COOPER: I have a question or statement maybe. One of the faults we have
in the construction industry, and I'm sure that it is not unlike the maritime
industry, is that we may have the best company policy, we may have the best that
we can get in regulation, whether it is state, federal, whatever. What we do not
have is -- and the IBEW has done some work in this and I believe it was New York
and other locales up in that area. Our supervisors, our frontline supervisors,
do not have in the construction industry and probably the same in maritime. They
direct the workforce. You can have all the good policy. You could have the
nicest environment to work in, but the mindset of that person that is working
the workforce, that foreman, that is where the breakdown lies across the country
as far as I'm concerned.
The IBEW did some work in New York and you could not get dispatched as a
foreman unless you had a massive amount in one local and maybe more of safety
training. But in construction, normally, you can go be a foreman just because
you have been around for a long time. And I'm not speaking to a 40-hour program
I am talking about an in-depth program normally done through the union or any
other place you want to get it. But before a person comes out and supervises the
workforce, and directing the workforce, and telling everyone that works for him
or her to do specific activities, unless he has the mindset on safety and health
and what it is all about, that is where the downfall is.
MR. THORNTON: I think you have a very good point. You know, your safety
begins when the foreman turns his back on the crew. That is when your safety
program really starts. One of the things that we -- and we recognized that early
-- and one of the things, you know, it occurred to us that the foreman really
has been ill-equipped to deal not only with productivity, quality, and personnel
issues, but also safety issues, so we initiated a special program, a training
program for our foremen, first-line supervision to equip them up with those
tools that he or she needs really to address such issues as quality,
productivity, and safety. And it has paid huge dividends for us.
MR. COOPER: I can say this. Now you represent management?
MR. THORNTON: Yes.
MR. COOPER: I do not want to get in trouble with the IBEW, but I can tell you
what we started doing. In the collective bargaining agreements we have used that
as negotiating tools and told management to put -- to negotiate that in the
collective bargaining agreements, that individuals on the job site will not be
foreman unless particular training has taken place.
In addition to that -- and I am from the Ironworkers International union,
their safety director -- we have recently and properly gotten a collective
bargaining agreement that no one would be dispatched from the nine-state area
that I'm involved with out there. But I am in the international also. No one
will be dispatched unless they take 20 hours of safety and health training a
year. And that takes care of the old journeymen in our case. It takes care of
the guy that is 45 years old that does not think he needs this, he or she needs
this training. Everyone has to take 20 hours of training to get the increase
that is negotiated at the bargaining table. And that is the real way to do it.
And we should have done it years ago and we have not gotten it done yet.
I just want to point that out to you so that you can get on his case when you
negotiate with him the next time.
MR. McGILL: Fortunately, Brother Thornton --
MR. THORNTON: I won't wait that long.
MR. McGILL: -- does not have to negotiate with me, otherwise he would be
doing a whole lot worse than he is now.
[Laughter.]
MR. THORNTON: Speak for yourself.
[Laughter.]
MR. McGILL: But let me go ahead and say that in the shipbuilding world versus
the construction world we are creatures that are within the confines of an area.
We do not move from job to job and things of that nature as the construction
world does. So, therefore, in order to get the word of safety down to management
and to make sure people get trained is a lot easier thing to accomplish.
Also, you have to understand that what we really promote real heavy is the
fact that safety starts from the CEO of the company and his words are what
carries that matter down to the lower echelon. If you do not have that support
you do not have a program. If they are not on board you can forget it, because
the monies are not going to be spent, things are not going to be down that would
emphasize the things that you're speaking of.
Certainly the contracts that we are negotiating right now over at Avondale,
one of the things that we have proposed -- and it looks as though it has already
been accepted by the big committee -- is to have a joint safety and health
oversight committee.
And what we're going to be doing is having oversight of the safety programs
at Avondale to make recommendations and changes as to how it affects not only
the employees but also the management side of the fence. And that is how we are
kind of moving into it.
I am fascinated though that you have tied it to raises. But if I could do
that with management in shipbuilding I think I would really be doing well. But I
do not believe that they would let me even though I would like to do that. That
is very encouraging that you did that.
MR. COOPER: I wanted to remind you that you're on a transcript here and I
will have a copy sent back --
[Laughter.]
MR. McGILL: And let me tell you, I have never had a problem with putting
things on a transcript.
[Laughter.]
MR. McGILL: And I have paid dearly sometimes for some of those comments, but
I still let them fly.
MR. BUCHET: Mr. McGill and Mr. Thornton, we don't have to talk about
negotiating skills here. We would like to hear more about how the various yards
in this study envision getting the ergonomic information out to the front-line
supervisors and the workers in the yard.
MR. McGILL: That is already starting to take place in our facility as far as
how some of those things have been recommended to the NIOSH study. But, you
know, a lot of the stuff that you were talking about, the purpose of this study
in its own, was to actually do something to make recommendations back to MACOSH,
and then from MACOSH to discern how that was to go out to the general public and
to the yards themselves.
MR. BUCHET: In the study, did you collect the information from the yards and
how they get information out or is there enough of a practice set in place so
that you can sort of take this information and give it to somebody that you know
it will be disseminated. As you pointed out --
MR. McGILL: Well, see, it is disseminated to both labor and management.
Management got the same documentation that I got. Okay? And then it comes up to
myself and to management to make sure that it gets disseminated down to where
needs to go. But as far as the study and its purpose, the study's purpose is not
to direct the yard on how to do that. That is something that would be done
internally through myself and the other individuals. But the study's purpose was
to give recommendations to MACOSH. And we must remember that is the intent of
the study.
MR. THORNTON: Let me add to that. You know, my experience is, if you build it
they will come, and if it is good they will use it. All of this study, you have
to put this in perspective. Number one, we are a very small industry, we are
less than 100,000 soaking wet. And we are a shrinking industry. We are not
expanding. So it is very important that we control costs, reduce costs. Yes, we
are concerned about hurting the employee and the worker, but we are also
concerned with profits. And if you look at the statistics -- and I don't know, I
suspect there is a similar trend in construction -- but we injure one in four
workers every year in some way. We're a very intensive and a labor-intensive
injury industry. It is a very dangerous industry, it is very hazardous. We are
not pleased about that but we are working to make it better.
It was in the '30s -- the TCO was in the '30s just three years. And so we are
small industry. Costs are important. And 60 percent of our total injuries are
ergonomic in nature and those are the ones that cost the money. And so this is
very important to us to play on the best practices and the worst practices out
there within our industry.
MR.DEVORA: Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that your interventions
or your successes with the educational programs that you have brought to the
shipbuilding industry, have you had any indication from the agency that you
averted, delayed, or held back on a promulgated regulation in maritime
ergonomics specifically for maritime?
MR. THORNTON: Yes. Through the MACOSH I think we have gotten OSHA to agree to
suspend, if you will, the agency in here. And I am not speaking for the Agency,
but my understanding of it is that the study, because of its importance and its
depth and its value to the Agency, will suspend regulatory, if you will,
development of a regulation until such time as the study is completed. But I am
not speaking for the Agency. That is my understanding.
MR. McGILL: Yeah. One of the things, there is the fact that we also had the
chairman of MACOSH, with the assistance of the MACOSH Committee, draft a letter
for the record for the general industry standard stating that we wished to be
exempted from that. That's one of the things they did in order to make sure that
we had a time to get this information in. That way we've taken control of that
destiny that we talked about earlier. And so that's one of the things that we
did and that has been sent in.
MR. THORNTON: But I think, lets not make too much of that of the standard
process. In other words, I think the important part is sharing the practices and
interventions as opposed to being overly concerned. I know everybody is
concerned about standards, and I am too, but I think that the point of this is
-- the real point of this is sharing the best practices and reducing injuries
and illnesses out in the workplace.
MR. McGILL: We are the second highest hazard industry in the country, you
know. That's the reality we have to face.
MR. THORNTON: And we don't want to be number one.
MR. McGILL: That's right. No. Not unless you go into the meatpacking
business. I don't think you are going to do that anyway.
The thing is that with that you would think that we would have more urgency
in getting something out there. Well, we do have urgency in getting something
out there. We want something out there that everybody can really work with, live
with, and really does what it is supposed to do, and that is prevent injuries.
And as an intervention program it works.
One thing I like about the studies that's going right now is the fact that
you can start implementing and start moving towards these corrections as they
are been recommended without having been a standard. And that is something
that?s extremely important because you're ahead of the game that way. So when
anything really starts to come to play you're already there. And I think that's
one of the big significant values of this study.
MR. BURKHAMMER: You mentioned stretching. A lot of us in construction have
been implementing stretching programs for about four or five years now with
varying success depending on the implementation in the various programs.
You indicated that you found stretching seemed to work with for your
particular group of cable pullers in your shipyard. When you find out that there
is something that works, do you call around to the other shipyards, like NASCO
and Todd and so on, and say, we know we tried this and it works here. Are they
picking the things up in implementing or are you waiting until the whole study
is done before they are -- --
MR. McGILL: Well, let me give you a little background on how shipbuilding and
all is. Brother Thornton jump in whenever you're ready.
MR. THORNTON: I will.
MR. McGILL: With the old NSRP, which is now Meritech KSE, there is both labor
and management participants. Also there is a committee that's called the Safety
and Health Advisory Committee that is set up through the old NSRP, which is made
up of labor management. And you have a very tight-knit community there that
meets quite often. And one of the things that we do is we absolutely discuss
things that work in our particular jobs for injuries and illnesses. And we tried
to share that information and we do so quite effectively I think.
And since I've been involved with this very heavily since the 1987, there's a
lot of things that we've done jointly that have really comes to be good. Take
for instance the safety and health program situation that we developed through
the NSRP, which was several years in the making, but we get together and
developed it way before the industry, I mean, before OSHA actually looked at
doing something along the standard during that line. We had already prepared
some things.
These things have been going on, God, I know ever since the old shipyard
employee advisory committee that's out there, the one before us. And that
information have all been shared. So really we have done that. We do that
continually. And it is an ongoing process, wouldn't you say, Jim?
MR. THORNTON: Yes. You have got to remember really three companies comprise
80 percent of the business. Now, the ASA, who are the smaller yards, might
debate that. But you add the numbers up, you know, between General Dynamics, the
General Dynamics family, the Litton Family, and the Newport News family, you're
representing 80 plus percent of the industry and balance of the smaller yards.
So you know best practices are easy to share.
The second point I would make -- and I hate to admit this, but industry and
labor in our industry get along pretty well and because -- and because we both
are after the same things. Okay. We want to have jobs. We want to have
prosperity and we don't want to hurt workers. So it's a win-win situation. So I
think that it in itself promotes the cascading that you've been talking about,
not only intercompany like intracompany as well.
MR. McGILL: And it also gives us the ability to negotiate better packages
because there is more profit.
MR. THORNTON: Any packages.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Well, Larry, we have more presentations, so I guess we had
better move on.
MR. RHOTEN: Mr. Chairman, may I ask just a quick question?
MR. BURKHAMMER: One more question.
MR. RHOTEN: Yes. And it pertains to another subject. But would you have an
estimate of what percentage of the welding done in the shipyard industry is
stainless steel? Just a ballpark.
MR. THORNTON: Do you want me to take that one?
MR. McGILL: You can take that one.
MR. RHOTEN: Actually I have two questions that I want to ask. That one for
sure.
MR. THORNTON: The amount of stainless, it depends on the type of yards If you
are in a nuclear yard you will see more stainless work because of the reactor,
et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. You will also see stainless, for example, in
liquefied natural gas carriers where stainless is used in the containment
process. But if you are a non-nuclear, non-LNG constructing yard, you are not
going to see as much as you would in the other two cases.
MR. McGILL: Mainly on weather decks and things like that.
MR. RHOTEN: Would it be fair to say that overall it is less than 10 to 15
percent?
MR. THORNTON: Yes.
MR. RHOTEN: And then the next question is, how much of that welding you might
consider is in confined spaces of the 10 or 15 percent?
MR. THORNTON: In the case of say LNG work, a lot of it is confined spaces. In
the case of the nuclear work, depending on the ship, if it is a submarine a lot
of that work is going to be done in confined spaces. I will say the caveat
though, Submarine construction has changed such that it is done in modules such
that now you can -- you know a submarine is nine modules, so you can do a lot of
the work and then put the modules together so that that amount of work in
confined spaces is declining.
MR. RHOTEN: Of that welding, are there occasions now where people wear
respirators when they are doing that type of welding?
MR. THORNTON: Absolutely.
MR. RHOTEN: To a high percentage?
MR. THORNTON: Yes.
MR. RHOTEN: Half of it maybe? I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I am
actually trying to get some information for another subject.
[Laughter.]
MR. THORNTON: Right.
MR. RHOTEN: I won't hold you to these answers.
MR. THORNTON: A lot of them wear personal protective equipment and maybe at
the break or something we can compare some notes or something.
MR. BURKHAMMER: One last question. Jane Williams.
MS. WILLIAMS: Sir, this is totally off the subject, but I hardly ever get
access to you. How do you handle the sanitation facilities in your industry?
MR. THORNTON: Very carefully.
[Laughter.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Thank you very much.
MR. McGILL: By the way, I'm really upset about the Starbucks coffee. We need
that at MACOSH too.
MR. REED: I never know what they are going to say. Thank you.
Next on the agenda is Cheri Estill and Leslie McDonald, who will talk about a
new NIOSH project in ergonomics modeled after the maritime study. This is in
construction.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Welcome.
MS. ESTILL: I am Cheri Estill. I am an industrial engineer and also an
ergonomist. I would like to tell you about our vision for a similar study from
the maritime study in the construction industry. We're calling it ergonomic
engineering solutions for the construction industry.
I would like to begin by telling you about our project objective. Basically,
we would like to determine the effectiveness of ergonomic solutions for the
construction industry and then, in turn, disseminate those effective ergonomic
solutions to the entire industry.
Our goals for the study, I have them kind of in three parts but there's some
overlap here. First is identify and evaluate the existing ergonomic solutions
and then secondly would be to develop and evaluate new ergonomic solutions. So I
have divided those out. They are somewhat similar.
The existing ergonomic solutions would be things that are already in place,
probably in your companies, but that are not widely used in the entire industry.
Another new ergonomic solution would be solutions that we would help to develop
actually for the workers and with the workers and with the companies to
determine what are the best things for problem areas or high risk, physical
risk, factors that are for tasks that are high risk, and then we will
disseminate these, which we're calling ergonomic best practices to the rest of
industry.
You may wonder what exactly we mean by an ergonomic solution. It could be
very many things. But the way we're defining it right now is a tool or a process
that you have implemented that not only reduces physical risk factors for
musculoskeletal disorders but also can increase productivity or quality. And
that is not currently in wide use. So everyone is not already really using it,
but there are a few people using it and it is a good idea. And there's no reason
that the rest of that industry sector or people that do those similar tasks
can't also use this tool or process.
The tool or process can consist of material redesign, material handling aids,
handtool design or redesign and process changes.
Now process changes, that could really mean very many things. It could
include things like changes in architectural design, but also changes in work
method or improved work organization and also planning of the work organization.
Next, I would like to tell you about the methods for our project. We have
three areas: information gathering, evaluation, and information dissemination.
For information gathering, that is really the stage we're at right now. We are
hoping to get a number of groups, companies, labor together to talk about this
project and where it should go exactly, and also to gather as much history on
research that has already been done by speaking with researchers and
practitioners, but mainly to gather information from industry and labor. What
are the ergonomic solutions that exist now? Where are the areas of high risk
factors?
Evaluation is the biggest area of this project and the thing that we will
spend the most time on. Like I said earlier, we're going to identify and
evaluate existing ergonomic solutions, and then follow that by developing and
evaluating new ergonomic solutions, and specifically look for areas with high
physical risk factors.
We're going to work with companies in labor to determine what are the areas
of high physical factors and especially to develop the ergonomic solutions. We
do not think that is something we can develop on our own. We will be looking to
them for guidance, for ideas. And then we have some engineering technicians for
simple things we would be able to build and bring back to the work site for the
workers to test out, and, finally, as information dissemination.
This is a little time line that I put together. Basically this project has
not started yet. We have the ideas for this project a little bit envisioned in
the minds of the two project officers but there is a lot of room for changes for
expanding the scope or narrowing the scope, and a lot of it depends on who would
like to help us with this project, who is interested in working together with
us. And that will really help us set the stage for what direction we take. But
we plan on doing what I have laid out here regardless really of who decides to
help us. But our partners will be setting the stage for where we go, what we
see, and what we end up putting together at the end of the project.
So we have three years. We start in 2001, which is really October 1st for us,
with literature review and attend a conference. And that's the information
gathering that I spoke about. Also we're going to start to identify existing
solutions. And as you can see, I've put the two starts next to some of the
things on the timeline, and those areas that we are really going to need help
from groups outside of NIOSH. It's not something that we can do by ourself. We
need help from groups such as yours and groups that represent the industry or
contractors, labors. What are solutions that you are already using that are good
for your company? And there's no reason why they wouldn't be good for other
companies that our doing similar tasks and processes.
And then we are going to evaluate the solutions. And that's this first year.
And the second year we are going to continue on evaluating more existing
solutions with your help of what are those solutions that you are already using.
At the same time during the second year we are going to start looking at asking
of you all, and similar groups, what are the high risk or jobs with physical
risk factors, processes with physical risk factors that really need to be looked
at and developed in ergonomic solutions?
We will need your help for both identifying the risk factors and developing
the solutions, not only from this group but other groups specific to the trade
that this process is in and also the workers that are actually going to be doing
these.
From that, we will evaluate those solutions, and each of the solutions will
be evaluated and turned into a two-page solution sheet. I call it a tip sheet.
Basically, the first page says what is a hazard and why is it a hazard? What is
the process and what is the solution that we now know of? And then on the back
it will say, what really is the benefit of the solution as far as health and
safety? But also we are going to quantify for each of these risk factors what's
the cost of the intervention; how does this affect productivity and quality? Is
there any change? Is it better? Is it worse? To quantify that so that somebody
looking at this tip sheet will be able to determine is that right for them, do
they have a -- you know, can they support this type of intervention.
And then we take that a step further, and it's going to say where do you buy
this intervention or how do you make it, with plans for how to make it or where
to get the plans so that you can make it so that these companies can actually
put it into a practice without doing further research or gathering their report
from somewhere.
So we will begin with these two page solution sheets during the second year.
And then in the third year we're going to finish all of the evaluations and put
together these two-page solution sheets into a nice publication and also
disseminate on the web site the NIOSH web site like the shipbuilding study. But
dissemination is another area where we definitely need help of groups such as
yours and other associations, labor unions, and companies, because as you said,
it is hard to get the information out to everyone, all the subcontractors and
other people that would need this information. So we will need to be gathering
what are all of the associations, what are trade journals that we can put our
two page solution sheets in that might want to pick those up. So, that would be
the third year of the project in 2003.
But as you can see, we will continue along the way. We will need to keep
coming back to this group and other groups such yours that we hope you direct us
to to determine the host of things identifying the risk factors and the
solutions but also dissemination.
Next, I am going to turn it over to my co-project officer, Dr. Leslie
McDonald, and she's going to start talking about some products.
DR. McDONALD: Thank you, Cheri.
The information products that will be developed from this construction
ergonomics project will include things such as a compendium of ergonomic
solutions that tip sheets that Cheri spoke of. A dedicated web site to showcase
ergonomic solutions specific for construction trades and different segments
within the construction industry. Research articles will be written and targeted
for the scientific community. And we also intend to sponsor workshops to bring
practitioners together as well as ergonomists who are conducting research
looking at ergonomic interventions as a way of sharing information between
practitioners and industry representatives.
We envision multiple benefits arising from this project. Our primary focus,
of course, is the reduction of musculoskeletal disorders among workers within
the construction industry hopefully across all trades.
In addition, we anticipate that as a consequence of reduction in
musculoskeletal disorders that there will be economic benefits for the
businesses in the form of reduced workers' compensation premiums. Also our focus
will be in working with the industry and with labor groups to develop practical
cost effective solutions. And so we very much envision that the products -- the
solutions that we will be showcasing will be helpful to the industry in
increasing productivity as well as quality. And so we expect that there could be
some competitive advantage to the companies who would be working with us.
As Cherie mentioned, this construction ergonomic project is in the early
formative stages. We believe that assistance from ACCSH is really crucial to the
overall success of this project. Cherie and I, combined, have 19 years of
experience working at our federal agency doing work in ergonomics within the
manufacturing sector and service sector, and we now welcome the opportunity to
do work, bring out skills to bear, for some of the challenges that exist within
the construction industry and we look forward to working with you on that.
And some specific ideas that we have, areas for which assistance from ACCSH
would be desirable, is the identification of existing ergonomic solutions that
you know of that are in place at your worksite. They may be trade specific and
that's fine. And there may not be a history of referring to some of the
solutions as "ergonomic solutions"; they may rather be best practices
or tricks of the trade that your senior journeyman may have learned over the
years. We could learn a lot from senior journeymen and what it took for them to
sort of survive in their trade and to basically adapt to the physical demands
inherent within their job. We could learn a lot about work methods and tooling
adaptations. And we would like to learn from those experiences and share that
information with other trades and with other industry sectors within
construction so that they can learn from your experiences.
In addition, we would welcome input from the Committee in identifying
particular tasks within trades or particular sectors within the broad
construction industry to target our efforts. Certainly we would be interested in
identifying those tasks for which risks are especially elevated for which you
may be experiencing the greatest number of 200 log injuries, worker compensation
injuries. Certainly we want to have an impact and so we would need your input in
identifying those areas of greatest need.
Identifying sights for the evaluation of study solutions is another critical
area where we could use your assistance.
MR. BUCHET: Could I ask you to compare what you're intending to do with what
happened in the maritime industry? And what the question is aimed at, how did
you get participation by non-union employers and their workforce? There is an
awful lot of construction that is not unionized. And we need to cast a net so
that we get information from the big population as well as the union population.
DR. McDONALD: Now that is very true.
MS. ESTILL: We are not planning on just targeting union sites. That is really
why we're looking to you to direct us. What we are looking for is the ergonomic
solution, regardless of the site, whether it's a union site or a non-union site.
So we need people to direct us to where those sites are and so that we can find
the solution.
We don't have any method where we are going to target a specific union and
try to say, well, a union came up with this and you guys should do it too --
MR. BUCHET: I wasn't suggesting that. But in the presentation from the
shipyard experience, the list included so many yards that were union and some
that were non-union. And I'm wondering if you can share with us, how they got to
the non-union yard and the non-union workforce and if that is something we can
try to use in construction.
MS. ESTILL: Sure. Maybe Steve can speak to that point.
MR. HUDOCK: Depending on the yard itself and what kind of labor relations, we
had even opposed to the non-union yard. And there was more, depending on that
relationship internal to the yard as to how easy it was to get labor
involvement.
MR. BUCHET: Were these yards, union or non-union, a part of the associations?
The access was outside the association, outside of MACOSH, or was it inside of
MACOSH, or inside the association?
MR. HUDOCK: All the yards that we have dealt with, besides the Navy yard, are
members of either the ASA or SCA, which includes, again, 95 percent of the yards
except the mom-and-pop yards.
MS. ESTILL: So we agree. It will be hard to find those yards that are not in
the trade associations.
MR. BUCHET: There are plenty of associations who come up. They are -- not all
of them serving on this committee but they are usually in the audience. I'm sure
we can try to get you connected to the right people.
MR. RHOTEN: I do not know if you're finished with her presentation yet, --
MS. ESTILL: We are not, but go-ahead.
MR. RHOTEN: Then I will just say this. I think it is a fine presentation. And
I like where you're heading with tip cards. And we would like to cooperate with
you in any way we can. We are the plumbers and pipe fitters.
In regard to union or non-union where you go, to me, the job sites are the
same, you get the same ergonomic problems you've got on a non-union job that you
have on a union job so that issue we do not particularly need to steer you to
all union jobs. I do not think the results come back any different, whether it's
union or non-union. I'm sure if the ABC can get NIOSH on the sites and get some
cooperation, the information they get there is going to be the same as they get
off of our good union contractors.
In any case, we will be looking forward to working with you on that. I think
the first thing that we would probably have to do would be work with our
associations to find out if we have contractors that have put together already
state-of-the-art ergonomic programs. I think we have. And maybe on the non-union
inside the ABC could search out and see if they have contractors to put together
state-of-the-art ergonomic programs.
Again, I don't think the union and non-union issue should even be
particularly addressed as long as you get the cooperation where you need to get
it.
MS. ESTILL: Right. We appreciate that because that is just the type of
assistance that we're really asking for today.
DR. McDONALD: Thank you.
The final area that we have identified for which ACCSH would be instrumental
in providing assistance is in the area of dissemination. Earlier I had alluded
to those areas for which we expect to produce final products, and we would very
much encourage input into the process of dissemination. We really want to
produce products that are going to be useful for your industry.
Our final slide, we provide contact information. We would welcome you to
contact Cheri and myself after this meeting. We will be here in your meeting
room through noon today and we welcome the opportunity to talk with you further
about our project. We do have cards.
MS. ESTILL: And OSHA is going to copy the slides and hand those out before
the end of the day so you should have a copy of those.
I guess what we are actually requesting is if the Committee, or, Mr.
Chairman, if you would like to in some ways say that the Committee would like to
be formally involved with our study. And that does not put you in any bind
financially. We are already financially set on this study, but we were wondering
if you wanted to formally say, yes, you would like to participate at least in
some way.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Yes, we would like to participate.
MS. ESTILL: Great.
MR. BURKHAMMER: I think I would like to do it through our MSD workgroup, the
existing workgroup we have. Michael and Marie co-chair that group. And by this
charge I will ask you to get to with them and that will be the partnership with
this committee. They will report to each meeting on how the partnership is going
and progressing.
Great. That is a super presentation. Thank you.
MS. ESTILL: Thank you.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Committee members, in your packet you should have a copy of
their presentation. It's right here, so it should be in your packet. Thank you
very much.
MS. ESTILL: Thank you.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Larry, thank you. We appreciate you and your cast of
thousands coming.
MR. REED: You're welcome. Thank you for the Starbucks.
MR. BURKHAMMER: And we got a lot out off it.
Jim has some handouts of the presentation if the Committee members do not
have them. Let us take a 10-minute break, be back by five minutes til and we
will move into the next session.
[Brief recesses taken at 10:42 a.m.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: We are now back on the record.
ACCSH WORKGROUP REPORTS
DATA COLLECTION |
MS. SWEENEY: Mr. Chairman, the data collection workgroup met yesterday. We
had a number of issues that we discussed. Don Kochin from F.W. Dodge came and
talked to the group. He distributed a report in which they attempted to search
the Dodge report databases to locate construction reports or injury reports that
matched the projects where incidents of injuries or fatalities were reported on
the OSHA 170 forms. So what they were basically trying to do was marry the Dodge
reports and the 170 form to see whether or not there were data elements that
they could match and see whether or not they could match the projects with the
injury/illness reports.
The results were that they found no data elements that actually matched. They
found no matches whatsoever. So it may be either we have to amend the 170 form
to match the data elements that are in F.W. Dodge if we want to be doing that or
change Dodge reports which I don't think are going to happen. So there is still
more discussion that needs to be done relative to the 170 and the Dodge reports
to see whether or not they could be more useful in identifying contractors and
subcontractors that have high illness/injury reports.
Also in the last meeting, F.W. Dodge was asked to determine how OSHA -- to
look into the Dodge reports to see how OSHA might glean more information on
subcontractors. OSHA wants to inspect subcontractors that have some of the
highest injury and illness rates or they would like to be able to go in there
and help them reduce their injuries. Typically, on the Dodge report they have GC
information but they only get subcontractor data from about 10 or 15 percent of
the projects, usually the bid results.
Dodge says that there is a market for this kind of data but they really do
not make great efforts to make to get it. If it is there, it is there; if it is
not there, they do not put it in their reports. But they will do custom searches
on subcontractors if the customer likes it. They said this is a very expensive
method. But I think Dodge is willing to work with the Agency to see whether or
not they can get more information on subcontractors later on down the road. But
that is the next workgroup meeting. We are going to be talking more about that.
Also, there are other things that we talked about. There is a data initiative
in construction. Mr. Zettler talked about this. Money has been requested for
fiscal year 2001 to get more contractor-specific injury/illness data. I'm not
quite sure whether they're waiting for their funding to see whether that has
been approved, but I think this data initiative will actually help the Agency
and DOC in evaluating contractor injury/illness data.
Our action items for the next meeting -- and there will be a next meeting --
we propose that Dodge take this specific example that they handed out to us,
which was a bid on a building in South Florida, to evaluate their subcontractor
data and to see whether they can get more information on subcontractors.
Hopefully, then we can build on this effort for future action by OSHA.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Marie, based on that handout we got --
MS. SWEENEY: The handout from Dodge?
MR. BURKHAMMER: The handout from Dodge. If you remember, on that first page
they had broken out the consultants and engineers.
MS. SWEENEY: Right.
MR. BURKHAMMER: That there was -- the question arose about the contractors.
And he said there was a second field or a second tier that was supposed to show
up. Is he going to bring that the next time so we can see how they go down to
the next layer?
MS. SWEENEY: That was one of the activities he was going to do.
MR. BUCHET: If I may, Mr. Chairman, what we talked about was having a
workgroup meeting in November, which would include, hopefully, people from the
workgroup, somebody from OSHA, possibly Dr. Schreiber, to talk about a number of
things so that we could put together a presentation for the full ACCSH in
December, which would track several of these issues. And one I think Mr.
Cloutier brought up with the example in Florida was, it would be nice to see
that one. But it would also be nice to see several others in case they cannot
prove whatever it is there would like to prove that.
There apparently is a great possibility that if we work out the comparison or
the identification issue for Dodge to match what it has with information that
OSHA collects, and that would give OSHA more information on the type of project,
the number of subcontractors, even the history of the bidding of the
subcontractors, and eventually they hope to be able to provide who the
subcontractors are on-site at the time.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Thank you.
MS. SWEENEY: I was getting to that, yes.
MR. BUCHET: Oh, sorry.
MS. SWEENEY: That's all right.
Also, Mr. Zettler also suggested we have Joe Devora talk to us about the data
initiative if in fact it got going and where it was going and what we might
input on that. All those things will actually be talked about at the November
meeting in preparation for our December workgroup meeting.
We also talked about the worker activity codes that we're proposing go into
the Form 170, the revised Form 170. We had a lengthy discussion with the
workgroup about the utility of all of the worker activity codes. In our opinion,
it is necessary to understand to put the story together on how the injury
occurred, what the person was doing at the time, in order to be able to go ahead
and do any prevention activities down the road.
Janice Wyndell, who is a representative of BLS, has worked on the ACCSH data
systems as well as on worker activity codes, will present in December how BLS
developed the worker activity codes. She has actually told us that those codes
are not ground in stone yet; that they were developed by BLS and they are
willing to make some changes; when all the changes will be made we do not know,
but they are in the revision process. We think this is a prime opportunity for
ACCSH and those of us who are interested in construction to get some good worker
activity codes relative to construction in this coding system. BLS will be
around for long time. It is a nationally used database. All 50 States use it,
NIOSH uses it, academics use it, as well as other organizations.
So we think that in order to get construction more clearly defined in these
worker activity codes, we're going to help them and make more usable for us and
for OSHA. We?re going to help them deal with that.
So our recommendation for ACCSH would be to use the current BLS worker
activity codes and the Form 170 to expand the activity codes related to
construction. And then Dr. Schreiber, we understand, is also developing worker
activity codes, and we're going to be talking to him to see how he derives it
and where he is going with it. He may use BLS and do some sort of amendment on
it. We do not really know. So this is where we are going in our assistance of
development of the 170 form.
That is the end of my report. Michael, did you have anymore?
MR. BURKHAMMER: Michael?
MR. BUCHET: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Probably some introductions are in
order. I am Michael Buchet, and the co-chair of the data collection workgroup.
And to my right is Suzanne Marsh, from NIOSH, who has done an incredible amount
of work in the workgroup to help us sort through the coding issues that we are
attempting to tackle.
We have a small presentation that is to help what will come later. And we
want to thank right up front the co-chairs of the 170 form workgroup for their
help in getting this presentation ready to go. I have my back to the audience so
I have no idea if people's eyes are glazing over, but there are two workgroups
that were working on the issue of how to collect fatality and catastrophe data
summaries. And you will hear the 170 workgroup later on, and they are the ones
who own the process and will come up with recommendations.
What we are here to talk about is the data underpinnings that go into the
process.
Without further ado we're going to PowerPoint you to death quickly because we
gave up time so you could all have a longer break. Applause?
[Laughter.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: That takes time away from your presentation.
MR. BUCHET: You know all the tricks, don't you?
One of the things that you have to do is fill out paper. We have come up with
a block diagram to show what a compliance officer or anybody interested in this
summary process would have to go through. And it is arranged this way for the
time being because it seemed to be a good flow. You start with investigation
information. Why? Because OSHA is going to be doing the investigation not just
to fill the form out. In the blocks that are in white. They can largely be
automatically filled out because the information will come from some other
document that an OSHA person will have filled out. Some of that is not
necessarily true.
Site investigation information. We don't need -- site information. You can
take a look at the amount of that. Now luckily, a lot of that is going to be
pre-filled. What we have been talking about, jumping down to the injured or ill
or deceased worker, is what the person was doing at the time they were injured.
And there are a series of codes which we're not going to go through which will
help answer that question fairly quickly.
What we primarily want to talk about is in the dark green and the lighter
green. The dark green material, the nature of illness, part of body, source of
injury, secondary source of injury, event or exposure comes from the
occupational injury illness and injury classification system, which was designed
originally by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, was adopted by ANSI, is, I
believe, the current ANSI standard though it may be revised is used by at least
all the States. And we are not entirely sure how many agencies collect data on
occupational illness and injuries.
By OSHA adopting this coding system, it will be able to compare almost
everything it collects to this greater body of knowledge. It would also be able
to look at the greater body of knowledge for trends and many other purposes
which would hopefully help targeting intervention, development, outreach
efforts, and that sort of thing.
There are strict definitions. Part of the problem with coding process, it's a
new language. One of the things that we have talked about at great length is the
training necessary to make it possible for a compliance officer or other OSHA
person or anybody else user-friendly with this system. It will take training;
there is no doubt about it. I mean, you have to learn the definitions.
These seem to be very simple. Part of the body identifies the part of the
body directly affected by the previously identified nature of injury. One of the
things this system does not do, it does not do a cause analysis. It paints a
picture. It is part of OSHA's greater data gathering effort and it is not
intended to produce a cause analysis. It will, however, give a very useful
picture.
The secondary source identifies the object, substance, or person that
generated the source of injury or illness or that contributed to the event or
exposure.
Now, let me go back. One of the things our group did with a great deal of
assistance from the 170 group was to say, well, that is not enough. We need some
other -- and we were not sure what the word was, so we proposed "multiple
additional factors." And we have suggested that this box be allowed to
contain maybe five other descriptions that would tell you more about the
secondary source or more about the source.
After you've gone through that much of the picture painting for the event,
what was the event? This one is troublesome. The event or exposure describes the
manner in which the injury was produced or inflicted by the source of injury. It
sounds like Greek. It sounds like any language you cannot speak well. It sounds
like Martian. It is not, I should say, the cause of the event, it is the event.
As we said, the system does not capture cause. That is left to something outside
the system.
One of the big issues in construction we all know is falls are killing
people. In the event of a fall, simply means gravity generated some movement in
a person who came down. And the source in this case is whatever that person hit
at the bottom end of the travel. So if they fell from a roof and landed on the
ground and died because they hit the ground, the event would be a fall.
One of the issues that our combined workgroups asked, why did that person
fall? And we will try to capture some of that in the multiple additional
factors. Was it windy? Was it icy?
Not currently captured but what we felt should be captured was in the case of
a fall, what was the distance? In the case of falling objects, also what was the
distance? And then we have multiple additional factors.
Let's take an example. Ironworker fell 70 feet to ground when steel beams
collapsed in a parking structure being built. Now, this comes from the census of
fatal occupational injuries. It is a real live -- pardon the -- it is not a real
live, it is a real example of a death as recorded. There is other information
there in the record, but we're going to work from this. And the other
information we will do this way. And this is sort of a schematic for what a
computerized system would look like.
Let's start with the nature of the injury or illness and let's see what kind
of choices we have. Well, there are your choices at the first level. This person
died from traumatic injuries.
At the traumatic injury level here are your choices. Now, because of the
other data that is available in the CFOI record and what we're going to
generate, we know that it was intracranial, and we know that it was multiple
intracranial because it was a skull fracture, and the system would automatically
complete that. Whoever is using it would simply read the descriptions. The
coding can be filled in automatically. And, in fact, you don't even have to see
the coding. You simply need the descriptions or you need a shorter version of
the descriptions.
What part of body was hit? Well, that is going to be a good guess. If it is
intercranial that it is going to be the head. And here you have cranial region,
including skull, and the brain ultimately, and that gets filled in.
What was the source in this case? This one the person fell from a structure
and landed on a surface. So we are going to pick structures and surfaces. Did he
land on a floor? On a walkway? No. He landed on the ground. In fact, here you
have a code for ground. It gets put in. So the source of that fatality was the
ground when that poor worker's head hit the ground.
Secondary source. We are now wondering what part of the structure did the
person fall from. Building materials, solid elements. You certainly could look
for metal materials nonstructural. That is not right. This was a structure,
structural metal materials. And you can even drill down to the point where you
pick. If it was a beam, pick a beam. That gets filled and automatically.
What was the event in this case? And we have an alternative that we can talk
about. He hit the ground, so it is not contact with objects and equipment. We
will come back to that. It was the fall. The fall unspecified? No. The record
shows that it was a 70-foot fall to a lower level. So we pick fall to lower
level.
Here we have fall from building girders or other structural steel. Now, you
have a picture of the event that does not tell you the cause, does not tell you
why the person was collapsing, which may be why he fell off the beam. It may not
be why he fell off the beam. We do not know.
Now, one of the other possibilities in a collapsing structure is that the
individual is not injured or killed by contact with the ground but is actually
pinned inside the structure. So we did an alternative. Let us suppose that that
is this scenario now. This building collapsed, and the worker is killed by being
crushed inside the collapsing steel. So here you have contact with objects and
equipment. Caught in or crushed in collapsing materials. Caught in or crushed in
collapsing structure. And there you have in the amount time it has taken me to
talk about what somebody would have to do if they wanted to fill this out on a
computer in the field.
Now, we remember the two light-colored boxes? So we have the fall height,
which is not entered, so we say, okay, enter 70 feet. One thing that could be
done here -- and Ms. Williams has pointed that out -- instead of leaving it up
to someone to write a number we could bracket it. We could say fall was 6 to 10,
11 to 15, 15 to 25, 80 to 90, over 100, or something like that. So you would
only have to pick one versus filling in what you thought was your best guess.
But let's look at the multiple additional factors. Let's see how that might
work. One of the things I am going to suppose about this example is the reason
the structure collapsed was wind load.
So we go to other. We pick atmospheric and environmental conditions, and we
have talked about all of these. We have weather unspecified; is it collected in
the information. Fog, high winds, gusts. And in this case we will pick wind,
high wind, gusts, and say that the worker was actually blown of the steel before
the structure collapsed or almost as the structure collapsed. But he was killed
by hitting the ground, not by being caught inside the collapsing structure.
Now, I have not kept track of how long that took to go through, but a system
like this could be put on anybody's computer, and by using it OSHA would not
only capture pictures of the incidents, but would be able to compare these
pictures beyond just what OSHA is collecting for itself.
Let me show you another view of what this could look like and then Suzanne is
going to talk through several other examples using a different graphic. You have
in front of you, I guess, close to the entire record that is collected and a
little story. So you have the ironworker fell to ground. And then we have
identified as you work your way around here you have to look, you have the
source, the nature of the fatality, intercranial injuries to the brain, falling
from a steel structure, striking the ground, when beams at the parking structure
this gentleman was building collapsed.
And, again, it does not take much time to answer the questions necessary to
find the information in this coding system after you realize that it is
structured and hierarchical. So you have a limited number of initial selections,
a limited number of secondary selections, and a limited number of tertiary
selections and you are there. And with that are we ready for the next slide?
MS. MARSH: My task today --
MR. BUCHET: We have a question. Let's go back.
MR. BURKHAMMER: I have a problem with he was building. I mean, building is a
very big broad issue. I mean was he connecting? Was he bolting up? Was he
welding? Was he riveting? Was he laying decking? I mean, everybody on the job
builds.
MR. BUCHET: Mr. Chairman, we feel your pain and sympathize, and that is why
we have asked BLS to help us work on refining the worker activity codes. Because
at the moment it is hard to identify with that level of specificity what a
person is doing.
So what we hope to do in the combined workgroups is to figure out a way to
build on existing codes and create refinements that follow the same logic, and
can be compressed into the grosser descriptions and drilled down to more
specific wants as they are needed. But allow us to compare what OSHA collects
was the bigger population of data out there that is already collected.
We understand that is vague at the moment, because there is not a code for
it.
May we go forward?
MS. MARSH: My task today is going to be to take you through a few examples
similar to the one that Michael just went through to show you how the OIC
structure can be used to tell a story via codes. I do want to say, as Mike
pointed out, these are real cases. They are not collected, however, from
somebody that may have a construction background. So there may be missing
information. They're not totally necessarily complete. I would just go through
the examples and then close with a few conclusions.
The first example was a construction laborer who was working inside an
excavation pit. The pit was 23 feet by 29 feet with a 90 degree wall. The wall
collapsed causing the dirt to fall on him. As we can see in the bubble on the
screen, the nature of the fatal condition was that the person suffocated.
The part of the body affected is a little vague, but it was because his body
systems failed. The event that caused the fatality was the trench caving in. The
source that directly produced the fatality was the dirt and the worker activity
was installing the excavation pit.
The next case is a steel worker who was setting steel when the structure that
he was working on gave way.
MR. BUCHET: We realize, but that is the problem, somebody in the field wrote
down steel worker, high steel worker. How is that?
MR. BURKHAMMER: No comment.
MR. BUCHET: No comment.
MS. MARSH: Hopefully, your compliance officers would do better as far as
recording the information in the narrative.
MR. RHOTEN: Just a question. Are the compliance officers going to fill this
out on the accident generally? Is that what they do with a fatality?
MR. BUCHET: We are doing the data part. Questions on how the forms should be
-- all form questions we refer to our co-chairs.
MR. RHOTEN: I guess my question is, like you have the cause of death of
suffocation for cave in. Who is going to determine that? I do not think the
compliance officer can. I mean, maybe he broke his neck.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Jane, you're going to address updating the form? Save the
form questions for 170 and let us get that out of the way.
MS. MARSH: The person was killed when he was struck by a steel beam. So based
on the codes from the OIC system, you basically can see that a steel worker
received intercranial injuries to the brain when he was caught in the collapsing
steel structure as he was assembling steel beams.
MR. BUCHET: And, again, we understand that assembling -- that that level is
not good enough, and that is part of the ongoing work that has to be done.
MS. MARSH: This next example was an employee who was on scaffolding that was
90 feet high when he entered the materials left to return to the ground. He
stepped back onto the scaffold to motion to another employee when the
scaffolding collapsed. The employee fell eight stories.
The nature of the fatal condition was internal injuries of the chest. The
event that caused the fatality was the person falling from a scaffolding. The
ground directly produced the fatality. The additional source here was the
scaffolding. And then the worker activity was he was climbing when the fatality
occurred.
MR. DEVORA: I think this might be an example of some of the confusion here. As
I read this scenario at the top, the scaffold collapsed. Would that not be the
event or the exposure? He did not actually fall from the scaffolding.
MR. BUCHET: The way this system is set up requires learning slightly new ways
of using the language. The event that produced the injury was gravity taking
that person through the air until he hit the ground. Now, the cause of it
probably is that the scaffolding collapsed and threw him into the air and then
he traveled to the ground. And as we showed earlier if he had come down inside
the scaffolding and was crushed in the collapsing structure, that would be a
different event altogether. But in this system, if you do a freefall, it is
going to be called a fall.
Now, remember, this is only a summary. The citation information and that
information is captured on other forms with people who are sitting there using
the standards that go, you failed to have fall protection. And if you had fall
protection and he was anchored to the building above then he would not have fell
into the ground. This does not answer necessarily the cause, it does not do a
root cause analysis.
Although in the cases of things like scaffolding that are bolted to the side
of the building, you can actually get down to the point where you can say a
contributing factor was a bolt, a washer, or a nut. You can also, for erection,
there are ties, there are connectors, that that can be used as one of our
multiple additional factors. But this system will not tell you that that is the
cause, nor does the current system.
As far as we can determine, the reason for collecting this misinformation was
not to do a root cause analysis.
MS. MARSH: This next example was a decedent who was backed over by a dump
truck while flagging traffic at a construction site. He suffered multiple -- he
or she suffered multiple head and abdominal injuries. The nature of the injury
was multiple injuries. The part of the body that was affected was the head,
chest, and abdomen. The event was that he was struck in the road by a dump truck
and his activity was flagging traffic.
MR. BUCHET: Now, in this case the worker activity code is a fairly good one.
So there are strengths and weaknesses, particularly in the worker activity
codes, that need to be addressed. And this is another one where you could go
back and find an additional factor -- it might have been night, it might have
been fog -- that could be added to the picture.
MS. MARSH: This example included a construction worker whose backhoe turned
over on him. He was preparing the foundation for a new home when he backed into
a mound of dirt and the backhoe flipped. He was killed when he was thrown and
trapped under the top of the backhoe.
In this case, as in some of the other cases that we have seen, the nature of
the fatal condition was an intercranial injury to the brain. The event was the
overturn of the backhoe and the worker activity was that he was operating the
machinery.
MR. BUCHET: In this one, we have already asked Mr. Edginton if he can help
us.
MS. MARSH: I think this is the last one. In this example, a roof collapsed
which fell over the decedent after violent winds of 80 miles per hour created a
funnel effect. The nature of the injury was traumatic injuries to multiple body
parts. The event was the person was caught under a collapsing roof. The roof
directly produced the fatality.
The worker activity was that he was carrying materials, and as with the
earlier example the additional source contributing to the fatality was the heavy
wind gusts.
MR. BUCHET: In this case here, sort of typifies, I think, one end of the
problem with worker activity codes. In this case it is a great piece of
information. But what does it tell you about anything about how to protect that
worker about the event?
But is nice to have and in many cases it could tell you something.
MR. COOPER: As you well know, my concern is worker activity. I think it is
the most important part of the analysis. You take something like residential
homebuilding. We got into falls a moment ago. As a representative of the
company, or the union, and/or on the advisory committee, if that was your area
of expertise, you would want to know if the worker fell while installing the
gutter, fell while putting the roof on, fell while doing the framing. That way
you can direct your workforce and others and OSHA into those areas which are the
most dangerous.
In this case here on the decedent, received traumatic injuries to multiple
body parts, which I as a safety director am really not overly concerned what
killed the person, he is dead. Cranial injuries, you know. I will get the death
certificate someday. But that individual was caught under a collapsing roof. And
it does not make any difference that he is carrying materials or whatever on
worker activity. But you could put in what the person was doing. Was it
electrical work? You know, in this case, you say carrying materials. I assume
that he is a labor type. But he could have been carrying materials. I just want
to know so that I can target --
MR. BUCHET: Let me go back and moment here. Let me go way back. Some of that
information is captured somewhere else. What is his usual occupation? And those
are other things we have talked about. What is his training history and that
stuff? So, yeah, I agree. All of that needs to be captured and would be very
beneficial in trying to figure out how to prevent it from happening again.
MR. COOPER: The other thing, on a much earlier slide you had up there, this
worker was categorized as falling but the reason the worker fell is because of
collapse. I can envision reading the BLS or OSHA publications or the National
Safety Council or somewhere else, and saying, all these area falls, we have
recorded all of these falls in there, but I want to know more than that. We have
40 percent of these falls were due to collapse. I do not need to direct my
workforce into fall protection equipment. I need to direct my workforce and to
securing the building --
MR. BUCHET: Without a doubt.
MR. COOPER: -- in our particular case with structural steel. One of our big
problems is securing the building. And it incurs all kinds of problems.
MR. BUCHET: Yes, without a doubt. One of the things we have to caution though
is that this is not the root cause analysis. So the person's falling because the
structure collapsed, may be true and this information may support that, but it
also might not be true. And OSHA needs to go maybe a little bit beyond all of
what is captured here to make that determination. This will be a much better
source and system than what currently exists as you guys are going to discuss
later on.
Targeting the intervention, as we heard from the maritime group, after you've
collected the information analyzing it, is another thing. And we are offering
this as a system. Remember, we're talking primarily about the greens. As a
system where OSHA can borrow a considerable depth of knowledge and experience
from the States, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, from the ANSI Committee
that has adopted this and has put together how you make the tough calls, was it
a fall? Was it a collapse? Did he die from hitting the ground? Did he die from
being caught in the material? Was fog a factor? Was wind a factor? That
information is out there. Learning to speak this way is out there. And
personally, I see our job as helping OSHA translate it into construction so that
construction does not create a system that makes itself more a part from the big
body of data than it already is.
I think there's plenty to be learned by comparing our experiences by the
general experience as opposed to isolating what we are looking at.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Larry.
MR. EDGINTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am trying to understand what we're
trying to get at or how fine we are trying to go with these worker activity
codes. And let me give you an example sort of following up on a brief
conversation we had had previously on this. We have an excavator or operator
clearly saying we can identify that equipment and we can have a task that is
being performed by that operator. For example, removing a stump. And we could
say but is that as fine as we are trying to get or are we trying to get past
that in terms of certain actions of that operator and piece of equipment as it
relates to stump removal?
Is he undercutting it. Are we talking about it being done on a slope? I mean,
how fine are we trying to get there? One? And then two, I guess the other thing
I think about as we go through something is how do you stay current. I just made
some notes to myself with the impact of technology in terms of materials that
are being used in the work process the methods themselves, the type of
equipment. Because the industry is ever-changing. And so what we are trying to
do is appears to be to take something that's as dynamic as we can think of
today, so to speak, but it may not be the fit for tomorrow. I guess that is my
concern.
MR. BUCHET: Let's try and tackle it in reverse order.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Let me say something, first. I think you have to understand
-- and it took me a long time to get this. I am a little slow, but it took me
long time to get this -- there is a very fine line between Jane and Steve's
workgroup of designing the form and what Marie and Michael are doing is
extracting the data from the design form. So I think a lot of these questions
maybe should wait until after Jane and Steve get their presentations so that we
can see the whole picture better rather than trying to pick and choose right now
what to ask who. And Michael and Marie will be here, so we can ask either
workgroup, Larry.
And I think your question I think would more fit Jane and Steve than it would
Marie and Michael. So if we could, please finish and then we will move on.
MS. MARSH: I think our desire in doing this was just to give you an idea of
what OICS is and what can be done with the different categories within OICS. I
realize that this is a complicated system, but from the examples, hopefully, you
at least have an idea of how the categories, the nature of injury or illness,
the part of body, the source of injuries, the secondary source, the event or
exposure, and then any other multiple additional factors can be used to paint a
picture, if you will, of what is contained in the narrative.
A central point we would like you to remember is that we cannot use one
single code or a descriptor, one single descriptor to explain the circumstances
surrounding the fatality or injury. But you must use these categories and
others, say, in the injured or ill deceased worker information together when
analyzing the data.
I just wanted to close at this point, but I want to leave you with a few
thoughts. We do feel very strongly that OSHA should begin coding information
from the 170 form and any other related forms using the OICS coding structure
because it does exist and it is a nationally known and nationally used coding
structure. OSHA investigators, OSHA, in general, and those using OSHA's data
would benefit greatly by having data coded to an existing structure.
I was reading through an article that Scott Richardson did in a paper that
was published in Safety and Health in 1997, and he pointed out some reasons that
a single existing source for coding occupational injuries would be the best way
to go. It would enable OSHA to standardize codes across forms. It would
certainly improve the quality of the data that it collects and, it would also
allow OSHA to compare their data to other sources to make sure that they are
sort of going in the right direction.
Finally, by using an existing structure OSHA would not need to spend time and
money by trying to invent their own codes or training systems which would result
in cost and efficiency benefits for OSHA.
I truly feel that the 170 workgroup which you will be hearing from in a few
moments and the combined workgroup should be commended for all of their efforts.
I guess that is really at this point all we have.
MR. BUCHET: I would like to add to that too, and to reiterate something that
our Chairman said earlier. The data collection workgroup is terribly interested
in the collection of data as well as the extraction and analysis of data. If it
is not described succinctly and put into whatever device is used for its input
and storage, it will not come out in a useful form. And we have worked hard with
our 170 co-chairs and are very thankful for the chance to work with them to come
up with the best solution for OSHA in this particular case, the fatality
catastrophe summary data collection process. Thank you.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Thank you. Next we have -- before lunch, we want to hear the
170 workgroup report from Jane and Steve. And then we will judge what time it is
and we will schedule lunch accordingly. Jane, Steve.
MR. COOPER: Mr. Chairman, Larry Edginton of this Committee asked the question
a moment ago and as it relates to worker activity. And instead of seeing what we
normally see occasionally, even when we see that, equipment malfunction, or
equipment operation, to answer your question, you asked about -- we talked about
a backhoe and a stump and how much detail was going to go in there. We are
simply saying in your expertise, and we are talking about dirt work, we want to
tell you and OSHA and everyone else, if it was a backhoe operation, if it was a
front-end loader, if it was a CAT, if it was an earthmover, so if you find out
that most of the fatalities in your industry, let's say 32 percent were backhoe
operation, that's the worker activity as far as we are concerned. Not any
details about anything else. Just what type of operation was being performed.
And we are talking, we do not care if the backhoe operation was digging a
trench. That is going to come in later. But backhoe operation is the most
dangerous thing you have possibly. But without finding that worker activity, you
are going to come up with equipment operation which tells you absolutely
nothing. Well, as far as I'm concerned.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Does that answer your question , Larry?
MS. WILLIAMS: I think when we get done he will see that.
MR. EDGINTON: No. The answer -- I understand that. But what I have been
trying to struggle through -- and maybe Jane can get me straight on this stuff
-- is I understand what Steve is saying, but my question was more towards what I
thought I heard Mike and Marie talking about, is how to capture something that
is much more discreet than what you are talking about. For example, again, using
my example, there were certain steps that backhoe operator would take in
excavating a stump, for example.
So are we trying to capture where that operator was at in that excavation
process which is a lot finer. Or let's say he was excavating a tree or knocking
down a tree, and the tree fell over the rig and he suffered head or eye injuries
or something. I mean, how discreet are we trying to get?
MS. WILLIAMS: I think I can clarify some of this for you as we go through
this.
To begin with, first of all, I would like to acknowledge some very important
people that have been living with us throughout this entire process, needless to
say, our fellow people who you've already met in data collection, but Linda --
and if I say this wrong ? Grabowski ?
MS. GRIEGOZEWSKI: Griegozewski.
MS. WILLIAMS: Oh, I'm close. Anyway, Linda is with the Office of Management
Data Systems and has joined our workgroup, she and Cathy, and have been very
instrumental in providing input on what is going to happen to the form when it
is done to our process of review. And they have come a long way. And they are
going to be showing you in just a few minutes an example of what the actual
COSHO would in fact be completing.
To begin with, I would like to give you just a brief background of the
difference between what 170 in our task and how it mirrors with what data
collection is doing, so I think you'll get a good feel for that. But primarily,
the need for the 170 form revision, which is a form that is utilized by
compliance to capture information regarding fatalities, worker hospitalized and
non-hospitalized conditions, it became very evident is a byproduct of SENRAC.
One of the things that came out of that was a review of fatality data that
had been recorded. And they were reviewing this steel erection process to see
how logical this data was for their purposes. It found out many times on several
things that they were looking at that the data was tremendously flawed. Because
of that another particular task force was to achieve information, but because
the system itself is flawed it became very apparent that this might be a
consistent problem that OSHA was realizing.
The findings of SENRAC were confirmed by OSHA's outside independent firm who
took and looked at the information using the 1997 data. They actually examined
404: fatality events was the basis of their research. And they took a random 25
fatalities that had been coded to steel erection. By reading through the
narrative, not through the collective data, but by the narrative, they
discovered of the 25 events 19, or 76 percent, were not steel erection related
at all.
So we knew that we had a problem with the form that has in fact been
verified. So then it became a point of how do we look at the form to get more
realistic data because OSHA knew they had a problem. They know that they cannot
retrieve what they need for their efforts of, first of all, is worker
protection. How do we change standard language to ensure that we are doing the
best job we can to provide safety for our workers? And, second, of course, for
targeting.
The other issue that came out of the review by the independent consultant was
that this was across the region problem, across federal problem. There was no
specific group, and so it is a terrible problem. And, therefore, it was very
clear that the form itself in computer language was corrupt. That certainly does
not mean that any of the people -- I want to be very clear -- that was using the
form -- OSHA people are not corrupt, but the form itself was flawed in what it
was doing. And the reason is because if you look at what Michael's initial
presentation was showing you, BLS primarily was using three code, three
character, three digit coding process. So when they looked at the data what we
were finding is that a fall was just that, a fall. It did not tell us anything
in regard to the cause, the activity, what could we target.
In looking further, we would find out that the data collection group itself
truly looks at accidents in a data method for comparison and analyses. We were
more concerned with getting some detailed logic into the system so that OSHA
could really take a look at what was in fact causing this so they have something
to work with. That became our charge, to assist OSHA more so than data
collection and the statistical analysis of the after fact of how can we come up
with the document that would in fact make sense.
I'm going to pass around a motion that will be coming to the Committee when I
conclude all this, but the second page of this shows the flowchart. This
flowchart, what we have done with this is to go back to the logic sheets that
accompanied the original Form 170. It was 60 pages of text with questions, if
you will. And what we found out was many of these questions were completely
erroneous and did not offer sound information at all to OSHA. Most of the good
information that they need was in a narrative, but you cannot plug a narrative
into any retrievable method. You have to sit and look at each one.
We also found the most of the information coming in regard to the deaths, to
answer Phil's question, was being taken from BLS by looking primarily at death
certificates. So, again, we have data that is being structured by a physician or
someone who is making a subjective call that, yes, the death was by
asphyxiation. That goes into a code of asphyxiation. But it does not tell you
how it occurred. Was it a chemical relation? Was it an excavation? What was the
actual cause that we are looking at? So we started keeping a mindset of three
key facts at this point.
One, the compliance people are being burdened with a great deal of
information that they were not taking the time to fill out correctly, primarily
because the information that they were referring to did not truly relate to the
document that they were working with. So they would bypass several of the
fields, we are assuming, to get to the bottom of the form and that has proved
itself by the analysis on the independent people.
The other issue that was very, very clear to us was that we had to get this
form very reduced. It has got to be simple, easy for a compliance person to do
because we also have been told, and we believe very strongly, that in many cases
the COSHO would go so far in completing the form and then turn it over to
someone else, an administrator, to complete it who was not involved in the
fatality issues themselves, and more importantly, more than likely, were not
involved in actual field construction knowledge to make legitimate decisions as
to what should be into the form.
So to keep it short and simple, the best we could do, we took the original
logic data, the 60 some pages that I told you about, and we first began our task
in looking at what was being asked, striking out the things that we knew were
totally subjective information. If a worker is deceased, it is hard to say how
much training have you had all your life, nor is any employer going to be able
to have that information on file.
So again, as Steve has pointed out, we decided that it would be best to
concentrate totally on the activity of what the worker was doing.
In the current system with BLS codes of three digits they have other codes
that could be brought into it. But again, they are minimum identifications. The
other issue was very clear, that we want the worker activities to be defined by
the construction people who have the expertise in the field to understand what
is the key four or five activities that are killing workers within your specific
trade or work activity, as you will.
And one of our charges will be we are very near done getting information to
these various workgroups that we are calling basically will be our trade unions
as well as our non-union shops, to have them identified for us, the four or five
activities that they see are having a primary effect on their trades.
We will work them into the coding system. But the key to understanding that
process is that by going to a five- or six-digit information it would always
collapse back to the BLS code so that we do not interfere in any way with their
abilities to collect statistical analysis, but where OSHA itself would have more
of a handle on the secondary source of what truly is causing the fatality in the
workplace.
Just briefly to give you a prime example because SENRAC was so involved in
the steel erection, Subpart R, they started laying out this information, so this
was the first one that we utilized in our review to see if our theories were in
fact correct. We will be doing the same, as I said, for all trades. But if
you're going to look at involving construction, assembling, dismantling, which
is the BLS three digit code, 312 means installing and that is where all of these
things were going. If the worker is killed installing, what is that telling OSHA?
Absolutely nothing. That is as far as a data would go unless someone read a
narrative.
By adding one digit you go 3121 and you make it steel. Decking and landing.
You would look at the next items and add one more digit. So what we're talking
about doing here, and you would have decking, final attachment, decking,
flashing of decking, decking, hoisting bundles, ornamental, architectural, other
installation, you could keep right on going down your list; connecting, folding
up, welding, burning, plumbing, moving point-to-point. So you can see by adding
a couple of digits and refining the activity of the worker, OSHA would not have
to be wondering, well, what are we doing with 70 fatalities in installation? If
they looked, and they saw that they had of the 70, 10 in steel erection during
the connecting process, that means something to them, that we can start looking
at language to change and that we certainly can look at targeting.
This would follow the same process through each of the disciplines, the
trades, whatever we wish to call it. It would help them really do a much better
job in defining where they need to put their resources and certainly where
safety training can be emphasized to protect the fatality and the worker, excuse
me, from occurring to begin with, which is what we are not doing at all in the
current system in the current way it is working.
If you see that flowchart that is attached to the motion you will see -- I am
sorry we do not have extra ones, but anyone can come and review this.
We took the data into health OMDS who is going to be the computer people who
make this work for the COSHO. They are going to show you briefly a couple of how
we are beginning. We're not going to interfere. It is not the charge of 170 to
tell OMDS how to do the logistics of computer language for OSHA. They are the
wizards at this and they will do what they need to do. But they were most
anxious to get good clean information to them so that they could in fact achieve
their task.
So, to help them understand it, knowing that they are computer people, we
went and put all the questions of this multiple page form into a very clear
simplistic box orientation, if you will. Each one of these questions have a
response of identifier in this form. Then they will have a drop down to allow
the COSHO to select data without having to stop and go to another two- to
three-inch document to find a code or to find another means to answer his tes,
thereby allowing him to actually complete his task -- excuse me -- and allow him
to complete a document.
The key to all that is we had to have OSHA's commitment, which we received
from Mr. Jeffress on the record, that a training module for the COSHO on how to
utilize the computer drop-down systems, and how we could, in fact, tie certain
fields so that they were mandatory to be filled in. But we did not think that
was really going to achieve the total goal, so they have gone as far as to say
that this will be a mandatory form for all fatalities that would have to be
completed by a COSHO. And it is their desire that the region would be evaluated
upon its completion and the data that is in the form upon its completion.
We realize that it would more than likely take a year of review of various
COSHOs to see that the form is being, in fact, completed properly, and they are
prepared to do that. So they are very anxious to work with all the people that
they have asked to assist them. And Mr. Jeffress has been most helpful in
allowing us to proceed in getting OMDS already on the target area that is
refining some of this language.
This all blends back into what Michael was presenting to you. Our emphasis
was on what can be factually obtained about the incident and the fatality that
would allow OSHA to have more of a response to the data, that we have good data,
and that others can be analyzing that data after the OSHA begins looking at.
Finally, the key also to it is another major point: we want this form very
quickly. OMDS is already certainly supporting this need. We will target our
efforts to be completed by the end of December, which will support their target
date, and this will allow OSHA to start tracking their own internal data now
while we have other codes being refined, other systems of coding being refined,
they would be able to start utilizing this information very quickly.
So, you see on the form, you have got the investigation information. A lot of
this too is geared to allow information to feed from one form directly into the
170 form, so it is not a repetitive insert continually by a COSHO having to put
the same thing in over and over and over. One will allow it to feed the other,
which is, of course, the beauty of technology.
The site incident information, we took a lot of stuff out of that. It was
very subjective, but we really concentrated on how and why we needed to see what
could be relevant to the fatality.
Injured/deceased worker info, we have added some information into that. We do
want to know the sex. Of course, you have already seen on Larry's presentation
the key that BLS looks for as far as nature, body, and those type of issues. We
want them to look more at the project site. Hours. We wanted to be more
specific, up to eight hours, whether a fatality is occurring at the beginning of
the work shift versus the end of the work shift versus overtime.
The tasks, of course, I have already elaborated on that. The parts of the
body, Michael had, source, injury, secondary, then exposure. And then we just
have an example of a fall versus falling objects, so we can look much closer at
what is really going on in the activity.
I will now have Linda just show you quickly how this form would appear to the
COSHO in filling in the data to support it.
MS. GRIEGOZEWSKI: Right now what I'm going to show you is the existing form.
It is not remodeled for the drill down coding, and that is what we are
anticipating receiving, is that for right now we have near lists. You put the
victim in and you can put several victims in. You tell us the sex, the gender,
come down, and there's a list of codes here and you select from it. But it does
not drill down once you make a selection. And here is where the data validity is
of a concern, is that I can use -- you see, I do not know what I'm doing here
and I am not paying much attention. It is easy to fill out. It is quick, and you
can select codes just like the other software was demonstrating to you, you can
select values. But what the committee is helping us with is selecting the
correct values, things that go with back, bring up just those codes, did not
give me a long laundry list of codes which I now have for them to select. They
are going to help give us relationships that are more accurate and that is what
we're looking forward to.
It will not take the compliance officer a long time to fill out, as was
previously stated, but the accuracy would improve greatly from the random entry
that is currently going on.
There's hazardous substance codes that we relate to, there are occupational
codes. And again, there has been the discussion today of interest of refining
these codes and using standardized codes for these instances.
This is currently on the COSHO application. These screens can be multiple
entry and they can also be directed right from the inspection. There is a button
on the inspection form that says, now let's do the 170. And it flips right into
doing the 170 from the inspection and prefills quite a bit of the data.
Another screen that was put up to assist in understanding construction
projects greater was a list, again, of information that told me a little bit
about the costs, and the building and the structures that were involved.
This information is readily -- as you can see, it is easy enough to complete,
but the compliance officer's can pretty randomly make selections among these
categories.
MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Linda. So you can see by providing them the
information and the accuracy of the information what the byproduct will end up
being for OSHA is a very strong tool that makes credible information available
to them for all the purposes that I've said before. The activity we feel is the
key to making it work, to all safety professionals in preventing injury as well
as everybody; the key to all of these issues is finding out what caused the
fatality to the best of our ability.
In response to one of your questions, Larry, we realize that we cannot take
those down and continue to refine it and refine it and refine it so we have
determined in working with and talking with people from BLS as well as other
people, that by going to the six-digit structure if we need to, we think we will
probably stay at four or five. But as steel erection demonstrated, the
five-digit really captured the level of where the bulk of their fatalities were
occurring.
So we are hopeful that we would be able to have the same level from all
trades and all activities that would really feedback up to the logic tree and
allow the other activities that is needed for collection and for other
comparative statistical analyses to be able to be accomplished from their
viewpoint while we still have our means of looking at the actual targeting and
safety enhancement efforts that we would definitely be required to, or certainly
help us and help every safety director, as well OSHA, achieve all the tasks that
we want.
We will take any questions. Mr. Cooper has a motion that he will be making.
Our workgroup, as I said, we look for this to come down approximately we think
December. We have got to refine the 22 pages down a little bit more if we can.
We are going to be reviewing a couple of items on training information. OSHA
will be writing its own training information, but we will assist them as best we
can to understand the form that we have gone by working with OMDS, who is also
going to be working with the COSHOs, to be sure we have a true understanding of
the form, the sequencing, its drop-down fields, and the simplicity of it, so
that we have complete collectible data.
And we will work definitely with the directorate. They have been so
supportive of this workgroup with Camille and all of Bruce's people. Mr.
Franklin and all of them have been really great to work with to help boss and
line up working with OMDS as well, as there are a couple of other consultants
that we are working with two be sure that the data is in fact what we're hoping
to achieve.
And our new charge that we added on from this morning will be that we will
work with the paperwork reduction people within the construction facility so
that we can pull into our effort how we can reduce paper based on looking at
some of these fatality issues. I think that is certainly an achievable goal for
us in working within them and working with the other workgroups. So we have
added that on our remaining list of items that we need to do. The key emphasis I
think will be working with the COSHO with the final applications that they
understand it and that we have the banking enforcement of the agency to ensure
everybody is utilizing it.
I think at this time we can enter the motion and then we can take any
questions. If you would like to have your questions now. I see some fingers
going up.
MR. BURKHAMMER: No, enter the motion.
MR. COOPER: Stu, are usually this grumpy?
[Laughter.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Please enter your motion.
MR. COOPER: Motion: To harmonize OSHA databases the workgroup recommends the
attached flowchart and OSHA begin coding all information required on the revised
OSHA 170, which is the investigation summary and construction accident
information forms, using the systems of the American National Standard
Z16.2-1995 information management for occupational safety and health.
The rationale behind this is, this standard, national standard Z16.2-1995,
information management for occupational safety and health was developed as a
consensus standard and was based upon the Bureau of Labor Statistics coding
methods OIC codes. The current standard is still the basis of the Department of
Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics coding. It makes sense to have everyone
within the Department of Labor using the same coding systems.
Universal coding will make database comparisons easier and will provide
recognize categories of information about the major part of the body source
event and worker activity.
Nature, part of body, source, event, and worker activity capture a wide range
of information that currently exists in the OSHA database, but is not coded and
therefore cannot be analyzed. Some of the BLS codes may need to be expanded
beyond their current three- and four-digit use to address the level of detail
needed by OSHA. This can be achieved by adding two digits to the exiting ANSI/BLS
codes. The information within these groups would not be compromised because
these records will merely be a finer definition of the event.
Because of the advances in computer technology of the entry of this
information into the OSHA 170, investigation summary and construction accident
information forms can be done by drop-down screens. The logic of the drop-down
screens can be designed to follow the natural line of questions asked during any
incident investigation by the COSHO.
Nature, part of body, source, event, or worker activity are five simple
concepts to capture. The ANSI Bureau of Labor Statistics code can put this
information into a form that can be readily sorted for patterns. It is these
patterns that will assist OSHA in developing standards and outreach programs to
reach its strategic planned goals.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I propose this motion.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Thank you, Mr. Cooper. It comes from a standing workgroup, so
it does not need a second. Discussion?
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Hearing none --
MR. RHOTEN: Second.
MR. BURKHAMMER: It does not need a second. It is from a standing workgroup.
MR. RHOTEN: Okay. I will take back.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Thank you. Discussion?
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Hearing none, all in favor of the motion signify by saying
aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Opposed?
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Motion carried. Thank you very much.
One thing I would challenge you to do. You stated that at the end of December
you would be wrapping up. I would challenge you to be wrapped up by the next
Committee meeting, which is the first of December. If you can make an effort to
do that I think it would be appreciated by all. Plus you have your new charge of
working with Barbara and Todd on the Paperwork Reduction Act. So the workgroup
will continue as is now constituted.
With that, it is now 12:15. We will have a 45-minute lunch break. Please be
back at 1:00.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the meeting was recessed to be reconvened this
same day at 1:00 p.m.]
A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N
|
MR. BURKHAMMER: All right. We are reconvening. No labor, we do not have a
quorum yet.
Our next agenda item is fall protection. Those committee members of you will
remember this was Filipe and Bob Masterson were the co-chairs of this, however,
Bob resigned from ACCSH due to his job being relocated and Filipe has carried
on. The motions that are being presented today were the ones at the last meeting
that we kind of struggled getting out.
So, Filipe has worked very hard on modifying and taking these motions and
streamlining them to what you'll see today.
So we are going to be voting on them in sequence. We are starting with No. 2.
Filipe.
MR. DEVORA: Committee members, on July 14th 1999, OSHA published part two of
the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking on safety standards for fall
protection in the construction industry, requesting comments and information on
fall protection for workers engaged in certain construction activities currently
covered by OSHA standards for fall protection. The Advisory Committee for
Construction Safety and Health Standing Committee on Fall Protection, chaired by
Bob Masterson and myself, began a series the workgroup meetings in the last
year, three in Washington D.C., one in Chicago, and one in Las Vegas, Nevada.
This ANPR proposed 10 issues by the Agency that came about as a result of
numerous communications requesting interpretations and claiming that compliance
with the rule was sometimes infeasible and in certain construction activities.
Each of the 10 issues were broken down into several subissues. Our goal for
this workgroup was, one, to invite public comment and debate from experts in
these areas considered by each issue. Secondly, to formulate an opinion or a
pro/con scenario of that topic, and, thirdly, to provide the entire committee
documentation and comments to advise the Agency of future actions on these
subjects.
In my preface to the presentation of these 10 motions, there was a common
theme in all of these discussions, and that was that the use of fall protection
in many different construction tasks can create a greater hazard situation. The
workgroup believed that this is possible and in some cases very true.
However, the workgroup strongly advises that the Agency on this issue
believes that the worker is not always the best one to make the decision of
greater hazard or not. This should be a thoughtful management decision to
prevent the possibility of misuse of this rationale for workers not signed off.
So with that, we will begin. I will be posting the motions up on the overhead
screen, and then we will let the Chairman do the parliamentary procedure,
however, you want to take care that, Steve.
MR. BURKHAMMER: In your packet you have a list all of the motions, one
through 10. We are going to start with two. I will have Filipe read the motion.
It comes from a standing workgroup. It needs no second. And then we will go into
discussion.
Motion two.
MR.DEVORA: Okay. We will come back to number one. We are beginning with
number two. The ACCSH workgroup on fall protection recommends to OSHA that at
this time there's no need for alternative procedures for precast concrete
erection if current standards are applied correctly and the greater hazard
argument is not misused. That's what I referred to in my comments.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Discussion?
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Hearing none, all in favor of Motion number 2 signify by
saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Opposed?
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Approved.
MR.DEVORA: Motion number 3. The ACCSH workgroup on fall protection recommends
to OSHA that there's no need for alternative procedures for post frame
construction at this time.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Discussion?
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Hearing none, all in favor of Motion number 3 signify by
saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Opposed?
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Approved.
MR. DEVORA: Motion number 4. The ACCSH workgroup on fall protection recommends
to OSHA that there is no need for alternative procedures for vendors delivering
construction materials to a site, emphasizing that OSHA Subpart M
interpretations M-1, M-2 clarify when vendors are engaged in construction.
"Whenever vendor employees are delivering materials to a construction
site and exposed to fall hazards of six feet they are covered by subpart
M."
MR. BURKHAMMER: Discussion?
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Hearing none, all in favor of the Motion Number 4 signify by
saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Opposed?
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Approved.
MR. DEVORA: Motion number 5, the ACCSH workgroup on fall protection recommends
to OSHA that they should consider the use of alternative methods of protecting
workers climbing and installing rebar walls and curtains, such as retractable
lanyards, vertical lifelines with rope grabs, and double lanyard systems with a
harness. A cradle device could be attached to the climber to hold the rebar but
it is most effective to use mechanically lifting devices such as forklifts, and
cranes.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Discussion?
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Hearing none, all in favor of Motion number 5 signify by
saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Opposed?
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Approved.
MR. DEVORA: Motion number 6. The ACCSH workgroup on fall protection
recommends to OSHA that it should not adopt a separate requirement for fall
restraint systems, and should meet the same standards as those for personal fall
arrest systems to avoid accidental interchange of parts.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Discussion?
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Hearing none, all in favor of Motion number 6 signify by
saying aye.
Wait a minute. All in favor of Motion number 6 signify you saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Opposed?
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Approved. All right, we have a change in number 7.
MR. DEVORA: Okay. Change to motion number 7. Disregard this. It should read,
number 7. The ACCSH workgroup on fall protection recommends to OSHA that it
should change positioning device Anchorage requirements from 3000 pounds or
twice the potential impact to 5000 pounds or two times the potential impact
whichever is greater.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Discussion?
MS. WILLIAMS: Would you read that again.
MR. DEVORA: Okay. Recommends to OSHA that it should change positioning device
Anchorage requirements from 3000 pounds or twice the potential impact to 5000
pounds or two times the potential impact whichever is greater.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Discussion? Mr. Swanson.
MR. SWANSON: Actually, I believe to be absolutely correct the way 502 E-2
presently reads the clause "which every greater" is in that as well.
So, it should read 3000 or twice the impact, whichever is greater, to your
recommended change, 5000 or twice the impact whichever is greater. It's the
clause "whichever is greater" that belongs with both.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Does everyone understand the revised motion? Discussion?
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Hearing none, all in favor of amended Motion number 7, as
stated, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Opposed.
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Approved. Eight.
MR. DEVORA: Motion number 8. The ACCSH workgroup on fall protection
recommends to OSHA that a prompt rescue plan must be formulated whenever a
worker is exposed to a fall situation and is using fall arrest equipment.
Component should include one a second party to sound alarm when possible,
availability of a communication device when working alone or in remote
locations, or, three, the rescue plan should address promptness of a rescue.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Discussion?
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Hearing none, all in favor of Motion 8 signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Opposed.
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Approved. Nine.
MR. DEVORA: Nine. The ACCSH workgroup on fall protection recommends to OSHA
that unfilled shafts over 30 inches in diameter require guardrail old barricade
systems and that rescue equipment be immediately available in such cases.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Discussion?
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Hearing none, all in favor of Motion number 9 signify by
saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Opposed.
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Approved. Ten.
MR. DEVORA: Number 10. The ACCSH workgroup on fall protection recommends to
OSHA that it should disallow any design that permits a body belt to be used as
an integral part of a personal fall arrest system. We believe it allows for
confusion of where the lanyard is to be attached to the harness.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Discussion?
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Hearing none, all in favor of Motion number 10 signify by
saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Opposed.
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Approved.
Now we will go back to number 1. In your packet you have a copy of 3-0.1(a)
STD, 3-0.1(a), which is pertinent to Motion number 1.
Felipe, would you like to comment anything about the document before we
present the motion?
MR. DEVORA: Commenting on Motion number 1, with respect to my colleague, Bob
Masterson, who is not on the ACCSH committee anymore. He was I guess the
champion of this motion, and we are going to make the motion the way. Quite
frankly, he took the initiative on this one as he represented homebuilders as
well. And the motion is, that the ACCSH workgroup on fall protection recommends
to OSHA that STD 3.01(a) as currently written is reasonably necessary and
appropriate to protect employees from the significant risk of fall hazards.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Discussion?
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Mr. Cloutier.
MR. CLOUTIER: If this motion does not pass, are we then telling the Agency to
rewrite the STD or to approve upon the document, et cetera?
MR. BURKHAMMER: If the motion does not pass we are basically saying to the
agency STD 3.-0.1 (a) is not acceptable.
MR. CLOUTIER: Thank you for your clarity.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Mr. Rhoten.
MR. RHOTEN: Mr. Chairman, I was just briefly going through this document, and
in general, over all I don't see a necessity for the residential construction
industry to have a separate fall protection regulations than anybody else. In
fact, in here it goes further than just residential. It said, if another
building is part of a commercial project that is similar in construction that's
also covered. It says in here they list four areas where they can have an
alternate procedure. They say that this alternate procedure or plan doesn't have
to be written down. They further say, well, the employee is going to be trained
in this plan, and that they are not even going to take the trouble to write
down, just overall. I think it's a bad area to get into, to have separate
conditions for residential construction. Beyond that, the people I represent --
and they've got plumbers noted in here that can work on a roof on these houses
under this alternate plan that's not written down.
They don't just work in residential construction. Our guys work in light
commercial, heavy commercial and might occasionally work on a residential house
that I don't think having different standards, fall protection standards, would
be appropriate. And I think he would be confusing and I don't really see a need
for. So, that is my comment at this time.
MR. BURKHAMMER: And I assume you'll vote accordingly.
MR. RHOTEN: Yeah. I thought I would, yeah.
[Laughter,]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Thank you. Any other discussion? Mr. Buchet.
MR. BUCHET: A point of clarification. If we vote this motion down, we are
sending a message. Or do we need an affirmative motion saying, we think the
Agency needs to rewrite the STD? I see this in --
MR. BURKHAMMER: If Motion 1 fails as written, I would think a second motion
of what to do would be appropriate. Mr. Edginton.
MR. EDGINTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I'd like to thank Felipe and
Bob for an awful lot of work. It's probably more detailed than most anything
else I've seen come out since I've been on ACCSH, and they are to be
congratulated for that. Also for taking on a very difficult and sometimes
controversial subject.
I really enjoyed the formatting of the binder that you provided us, and I
spent some fair amount of time looking at the rationale that was provided for
Motion 1. As you all know, sometimes I am the first to admit that I'm not always
the smartest guy, but usually give me enough time looking at something I can
figure out whether or not something is right or wrong. And simply put, I fail to
see a true rationale for this motion based upon the information that that's
provided.
As Mr. Rhoten has indicated, each of us have members that work in all
segments of the construction industry. We have figured out how to provide safe
workplaces within the existing requirements. It doesn't make good sense to me
when we talk about residential construction to add differing requirements. And I
am not supportive of the motion.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Thank you, Mr. Edginton. Marie, did you have a comment?
MS. SWEENEY: I have to agree with Mr. Edginton. I don't see any reason why we
have to take residential construction and put it into a separate class, although
it is a different type of construction. Not to have written programs to me
really fails the worker, but it also fails the employer, because if they don't
have written programs sometimes just like default, yeah, we have a program but
it is only in my head. And it doesn't mean that is being communicated to the
employer, its foremen and subcontractors, et cetera. I would not a vote against
them.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Thank you, Marie. Mr. Williams.
MS. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I agree with most of the comments that have been
made here. My other concern is, I can tell you from experience, it causes
confusion with the employers as well as with the workers, because we take
drywallers from commercial and put them in a residential building or one that is
classified for certain periods, and they're not sure what standards they're
going by and they crossover when the laxity starts residential in fact doing
versus what we need them to be doing more stringently by our defiance to these
programs and things.
So, in confusion of that, that there's no way that supports this system.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Owen, to you. You have no comments. Okay.
MS. SWEENEY: Mr. Chairman, I have one more comment. It would seem to me that
Mr. Masterson had a rationale for doing this, and somehow, I guess Felipe
probably will have to articulate that. He felt there was a need for some sort of
standard for residential construction. And if in fact this Motion number 1
fails, we really need to think about what the Agency needs to do. Is there a
special need in residential construction that has to be addressed relative to
fall protection?
And over and above what is currently in the law, maybe it needs to be
articulated better. There needs to be more plain language of the existing
standards that goes to residential construction. Maybe it is the issues of
getting down to the smaller contractors that work in residential construction
and articulate the fall protection standards as it currently exists.
MR. BURKHAMMER: I think depending on how the vote on Motion 1 comes out,
Felipe might want to enter another motion based on the current OSHA directive,
and some recommendation to the Agency of how to deal with the current STD
3-0.1(a) document. That is a current document that is used for residential
construction.
I agree that Mr. Masterson certainly had a lot of rationale for making this
motion the way it was made. And I am not sure whether we can address your
question based on his knowledge of the meetings and discussions, but, if you can
respond to Marie, go ahead.
MR. DEVORA: Unfortunately, the one that was the one meeting that was strictly
and 100 percent on this one topic was in Nevada, and one that I didn't attend.
But, let me go back to the question that the Federal Register asks, and
that's that first issue that says, whether there is a need for alternative
procedures for residential construction. And I'll just read here a little bit--
MR. BURKHAMMER: Alternative from this document that's currently existing.
MR. DEVORA: No. Not necessarily from that document, just in general as I
understood it. But that's what was existing. It says, when promulgating this
standard OSHA acknowledged that some employers in the residential construction
industry might have difficulty providing conventional fall protection for
certain operations; difficulties were expected doing the erection of roof
trusses, and the installation of roof sheathing, exterior wall panels, floor
joists and floor sheeting. Accordingly, the final rule will allow some
flexibility for the residential construction employer.
The rule states that conventional fall protection in residential construction
is presumed to be feasible. However, where the employer can show that
conventional fall protection is infeasible at a particular worksite the employer
may implement a written alternative fall protection plan. The plan must be in
writing designed for a particular worksite and specify alternative measures that
are as protective as possible.
So, what I take to mean is that the Agency acknowledged that there are some
considerations, and that there is a criteria for residential folks to implement
a plan.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Mr. Rhoten.
MR. RHOTEN: Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate your remarks and I think they
probably go further than just residential. I think if you go to any kind of a
job, and a contractor has unusual circumstances and he can provide a safe work
atmosphere with some other method, it's generally always accepted. And I guess
we are on the second question first.
I presume -- it looks like to me this is going to get voted down and then
we're on to the next question of whether we should go further. And I think the
language that you just relayed actually covers whatever problem they have. If
they have a specific problem in residential that they think they need to
address, they can address it with a written program.
Where they are coming from with this is, well, we're not going to write down
a program. Just let us do what we want and we'll train our members in this
unwritten program. Everything will be just fine.
What I really believe is, the issue is cost. Okay. Just being candid about
it, I think you're dealing in some cases with a lot of small people, small
contractors, in business that probably don't have any business in business if
they can't provide decent protection on the job sites that they're in charge of.
But anyway that's my remarks on it. I think there's enough coverage out there
now.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Bruce.
MR. SWANSON: Yes. May I put this in context perhaps? I believe what was done
here, and the reason there are 10 motions, is it was an attempt by the
subcommittee to address the 10 questions that OSHA came out with way last
August, and on subpart M. And the first of those was whether or not the
community, the construction community, saw a need to continue STD 3.1(a). And
that is the question that Bob addressed. And we stated his opinion quite clearly
that 3.1(a) is a fine document, STD 3.1.
And since the rest of this Committee might not agree with that, but all we
need from the Committee on the issue of 1 is, does ACCSH believe we should
continue with a separate policy or policy to M for fall protection in
residential housing or is there not a need for a separate residential housing
instruction and could M itself cover that? That really is the question before
the Committee, I believe.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Thank you. Based on that comment, I think if Motion 1 passes
we are agreeing with STD 3.01A in saying that the residential construction does
indeed need a separate document. If Motion 1 fails, we're saying what Bruce just
said, that we do not agree that the residential construction should have a
separate set of guidelines for residential construction.
MR. RHOTEN: Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would suggest it is going to take two
motions to clean it up.
MR. BURKHAMMER: And it possibly could, sure.
MR. RHOTEN: Because if you -- you can vote this down and somebody could make
the case --
MR. BURKHAMMER: That's correct.
MR. RHOTEN: There is another one we will come up with. So I think that
suggest it should be a two-motions, one, if we are going to vote this down, and
another motion that everything is fine just like it is and that's the end of it.
MR. BURKHAMMER: And I think that was my earlier comment about a follow-up
motion that we would need to clarify why, if indeed, one failed. Mr. Buchet.
MR. BUCHET: No. That was my point and question also.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Further discussion?
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: All right. Does everybody understand what yes means and what
no means? Read the question again, Filipe, please?
MR. DEVORA: ACCSH workgroup on fall protection recommends to OSHA that STD
3.01A as currently written is reasonably necessary and appropriate to protect
employees from the significant risks of fall hazards.
MR. BURKHAMMER: We're going to vote by a show of hands. All in favor of
Motion 1 raise your right hand.
[Showing of hands.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: One, two.
All opposed to Motion 1 raise your right hand?
[Showing of hands.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: One, two, three, four, five, six against; two for. The motion
fails.
MR. BUCHET: Could you rephrase that count for the record?
MR. BURKHAMMER: For the record, all those who wish to approve Motion 1 as
written raise your right hand.
[Showing of hands.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: One, two.
MR. RHOTEN: Are we going to vote twice on this?
MR. BUCHET: No, no.
MR. RHOTEN: We will really kill it.
MR. BUCHET: We are from Chicago. We vote often and early.
[Laughter.]
MR. BUCHET: In your reading of those responses you said the motion failed six
to four. It sounded like we ended up with four. The vote was six against two.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Six against two for the motion. Therefore, the motion fails.
[Laughter.]
MR. RHOTEN: You know, this could be like a union meeting. We just keep voting
until we get it right.
[Laughter.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: For the record, the motion did not pass as written. Does that
clarify a little better?
Filipe, would you like to make an alternate motion regarding STD 3-0.1A?
MS. WILLIAMS: Could I ask our solicitor or Bruce, whomever, once OSHA issues
something like that, what is the proper word you would use to rescind it, to
deleted, to withdraw it?
[Simultaneous conversation.]
MR. BIERSNER: You can say rescind or withdraw, delete. Typically we say
delete the provision or delete the instruction.
MS. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I would move that ACCSH recommend STD 3.1 being
deleted.
VOICE: Second.
MR. BURKHAMMER: We have a motion and a second. Discussion?
MR. CLOUTIER: Let me make an amendment to that motion.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Let me get the motion down first, please, before you amend.
Please repeat the motion.
MS. WILLIAMS: ACCSH recommends STD 3.1 be deleted.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman?
MR. BURKHAMMER: Just a minute.
[Pause.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Mr. Cloutier and then Mr. --
MR. CLOUTIER: Mr. Chairman, I think the word should be "rescinded"
instead of deleted. I would make that amendment.
MR. RHOTEN: I think the counsel just suggested to her delete it.
MS. WILLIAMS: Delete it. That is why I used it.
MR. CLOUTIER: He said rescind it or delete it.
MR. BIERSNER: Yes. I would say use both. And the idea, since this is an
entire instruction, I would say rescind or withdraw. Normally we would delete
like a provision of a larger document but rescind or withdraw is fine.
MS. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, may I clarify?
MR. BURKHAMMER: Yes, you may.
MS. WILLIAMS: That the standard is 3-0.1(a) and I wish it to be rescinded.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Owen.
MR. SMITH: I just have a question. Does that mean that OSHA would no longer
recognize that there are some special circumstances in residential housing?
MR. BURKHAMMER: No. I think what it means is that this committee is
recommending to OSHA that 3-0.1(a) be rescinded if approved, and then it would
be up to OSHA to decide what to do with our recommendation.
MR. DEVORA: I think what the crux of the matter is whether or not subpart M,
as it currently reads, can handle the issues of residential, and I think the
consensus here of many of you is that, yes, it can, if applied under those
circumstances. And I am sure there is a whole scenario as to why this even came
about. And I do not know if OSHA is in a position at this point to rescind that
or if they would be willing to or can. So I think that goes beyond the scope of
what we are discussing here today.
MR. BURKHAMMER: We have a motion and we have a second. We have an amendment
to the motion that has been agreed to by the motioner. Do we have any further
discussion?
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Hearing none, the motion reads, ACCSH recommends to OSHA that
the OSHA directive 3-0.1(a) be rescinded. All in favor of the motion signify by
saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Opposed.
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: All right. We have to do it by hands. Please raise your right
hand if you approve the motion as read. One, two, three, four, five, six for the
motion as read.
How many oppose the motion as read? One, two. Motion passes six for the
motion as read; two against the motion as read. Motion passes.
Felipe, anything else?
MR. DEVORA: No, sir.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Mr. Buchet?
MR. BUCHET: Just a stickler for details.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Please proceed.
MR. BUCHET: The motions that we have read, with the exception of the last
one, all say that the ACCSH workgroup makes the recommendation, not that the
full Committee makes the recommendation. We have approved them.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Once they are approved, they are the Committee approval not
the workgroup approval.
MR. BUCHET: As I remember, we discussed that when we were talking about
changing the language.
MR. BURKHAMMER: So when it goes to OSHA, the full Committee has approved it
to go. The workgroup motion was made to the Committee. Once it passes the
Committee it moves to OSHA. Thank you.
MR. BUCHET: It seemed to read more forcefully outside of that explanation if
we've changed so that it is said ACCSH recommends.
MR. BURKHAMMER: When we give the document to OSHA that's what it will say.
Any other discussion on Felipe?s report?
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: I wanted thank Bob and Felipe for all their work. I agree
with Larry and others they put a tremendous amount time and effort into this.
They had several hearings in various places to get input to this, and I think
they've done an outstanding job and I commend both of you for your efforts.
MR. DEVORA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Felipe, you're going to take the sheets, read, write them and
give them to Bruce.
MR. DEVORA: I will send him the originals then.
MR. BURKHAMMER: We are a little ahead which is good. Noah is here good. We
will now start the Directorate of Construction Standards Update. Noah Connell.
DIRECTORATE OF CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS UPDATE |
MR. CONNELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'll go through our standard projects in no particular order, but I'll start
with sanitation.
[Laughter.]
MR. CONNELL: Our reg agenda calls for us to issue and ANPR, advanced notice
of proposed rulemaking, December of this year. We have a team in place that is
working on drafting that document, Julie Jones, of our office is the project
officer. The team is making good progress and things seems to be going along
well.
Confined spaces. Our reg agenda calls for us to issue a proposed rule by July
2001. We are about to convene three stakeholder meetings. The first one will be
in Washington, on October 4th. The next will be in Houston, on October 11th. And
the third will be in Boston, on October 24.
These are going to be open to the public. And we're asking the public for a
help in several areas where we are going to hand out some notices on this that
are going to list -- that will list five issues. And very briefly let me just
describe them for you. The first issue is information on the typical
characteristics of confined spaces in construction and how we would describe
them. The second is whether there is a need for early warning systems to monitor
nonisolated engulfment hazards, such as in sewers, where there are situations
where you cannot block off the engulfment hazards. Third is the issue of
periodic versus continuous monitoring of atmospheric hazards.
There has been some technological advances in the last several years, as we
understand it, with respect to the cost of continuous monitors, and we'd like
some information on whether it's feasible and appropriate to substitute "to
require continuous monitoring" instead "of periodic monitoring."
The fourth issue, what are the ways that we might be able to accommodate
small business concerns for a new confined space standard? And the fifth issue,
this goes to the role of attendance, and by attendance, I mean if you look at
the general industry standard for confined space it requires that individual
workers be designated to attend a permit required confined space they have
specified duties with respect to the people who go into those spaces, monitoring
their safety. This is an issue as to how many spaces can an attendant monitor
and how many different responsibilities can you safety place on a single
attendant.
The next project, signing, signals and barricades, also known as highway
works zone safety, also known as the manual on uniform traffic control devices
for streets and highways, also known as MUTCAD.
Right now the OSHA standard -- our OSHA standard incorporates by reference a
1971 manual on uniform traffic control devices. Not too surprisingly, since 1971
there have been a member of advances and we have been asked by stakeholders to
update our 1971 reference.
Since 1971, the Department of Transportation has issued a new manual, and the
Department of Transportation has through its statutory and regulatory authority
required that its new manual -- and this is the manual that was in place as of
1993 -- that this manual be followed on all federal highway projects where that
is highway projects where federal money is involved.
It also requires all States to have a plan that plan must include following
the 1993 manual, the bottom-line, therefore, it is that on most roads in the
United States, because of the Department of Transportation rule, an employer
would have to follow the Department of Transportation 1993 version of the
manual.
Of course, also under the OSHA standard we technically have to follow the
1971 standard in the 1971 manual.
Now, we did issue a letter where we said that OSHA would accept compliance.
Anyone who is in compliance with the 1993 manual if they are in technical
violation of the 1971 manual that is considered a de minimus violation. But we
recognized that we have a need to update our manual and we want to use a
procedure called a direct final rule to correct this problem.
So, let me say something about the direct final rule process. This is a
process that has been used by other agencies for non-controversial rule making.
It works like this. OSHA's first official step is it publishes a final rule and
it provides a comment period. If there are no significant adverse comments
submitted during the comment period, then the final rule goes into affect. If
significant adverse comments are received then we will publish a proposed rule
and we can either try to address those comments in the proposal and modify the
final rule as appropriate. But, basically, if significant adverse comments are
sent in, unless we can modify the direct final rule to deal with them, we
withdraw the direct final rule and we go through the proposal process.
So, that is why obviously it's used where we expected. It's going to be a
noncontroversial issue and we don't expect to get significant adverse comments.
Just to give you an idea of what we're dealing with, we've done a comparison of
the 1971 ANSI manual and the 1993 manual. Let me just give you some illustrative
examples of the differences and how DOT updated the manual.
First of all, the new one provides a more -- calls for or requires a more
comprehensive package of temporary traffic control components. It adds turn off
cellular phones to turn off two-way radios. It adopts international symbols for
stop ahead, yield ahead, and other signs. The 1971 versions allowed steel drums.
The 1993 version requires that they be made up of lightweight flexible
deformable materials.
Flagger colors. The 1971 manual required orange. In the new version there are
daytime and nighttime choices of colors that go beyond orange. Our view is that
these are pretty straightforward common-sense-type changes and we are optimistic
that the public will view this as a noncontroversial change.
And I will also hand out a more detailed description to you of the
differences we see them between the old and new manual.
Subpart M, the ANPR --
MR. BURKHAMMER: Noah, did you say that if an employer was -- had adopted the
1993 manual versus the 1971 manual, you would cite them as a de minimus
citation?
MR. CONNELL: We don't cite de minimus citations. It would be considered a de
minimus citation, and no citation would be issued.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Considered.
MR. CONNELL: Subpart M, ANPR. We received a little over 2,500 comments. We
are still in the process of reviewing these comments, and then we will consider
whether we need to propose any changes to subpart M.
The ANPR for scaffolds, as you know, is in the concurrence process. We are
going to -- by the way, we've got about six issues to be raised in that ANPR on
scaffolds. It anyone has any questions about that I can give you more detail.
MS. WILLIAMS: Could you read those off again?
MR. CONNELL: Well, I can, because this is still -- first of all, let me say
that this document is still in the concurrence process, so, of course, the
document can change. So, I guess I can tell you what I anticipate will be the
issues generally. Right, Bruce?
The standard currently permits planking to extend up to 18 inches beyond the
scaffold frame. The question is, should we modify that standard to prohibit
planking from extending more than six inches where the employees can go up and
go down the scaffold, because it is sticking out and it is in their way?
Second issue, our standard requires that roof bracket scaffolds must be at
least 12 inches wide. Should we permit the use of roof bracket scaffolds that
are less than 12 inches specifically down to eight inches? And that was raised
because it was pointed out to us after the rule that there are very few
manufacturers of roof bracket scaffolds that will accommodate a 12 inch plank --
12 inch planking.
Third, suspended scaffolds under our rule must be grounded during welding
operations. Some folks have questioned the safety of that. And so the question
is, do we need to change or eliminate that requirement?
Fourth, under the current definition of competent person, the individual must
be capable of recognizing hazard. Should we amend the definition to require
specific training and/or experience in scaffolds safety?
Fifth, each employee on a ladder jack scaffold right now must be protected by
a personal fall arrest system. Should we allow a guard rail to take the place of
a fall arrest system that's on the ladder jack scaffolds.
And the last one so far, the standard does not provide separate rules for
tank builder scaffolds. We do have a nonmandatory appendix that has guidelines
that are specifically designed to address tank builders scaffolds. The question
is, should we have -- well, the standard right now classifies these tank builder
scaffolds as supported scaffolds. So, the question is, do we need to change that
definition and, therefore, create another category for them?
So, are our guidelines in the appendix appropriate for those scaffolds?
Steel erection. Steel erection is -- continues to be in the concurrence
process. Anybody have any questions?
[Laughter.]
MS. WILLIAMS: Can you share if there is any stumbling blocks as you would see
them now in any of the language from the draft that we have? Is it safe to
assume that most of the conditions in the draft that were circulated which show
how people undermining the directives that allow them to utilize that? Do you
see any major differences coming out of the final from that which was proposed?
Is there any way you could identify anything such as that?
MR. CONNELL: You're referring to the -- I take it you are referring to be
subpart R proposed rule.
MS. WILLIAMS: Right.
MR. CONNELL: I would expect that there will be some differences in the final.
I think on most of the major issues that the construction industry has been
focusing on, I don't think there's going to be -- I would not anticipate there
will be any great surprises. But, I don't think you are going to see an
identical document, but I don't think there will be lots of surprises.
MR. DEVORA: Will there be anything that didn't go through the negotiated
rulemaking process that was commented upon? Do you think there will be any
changes? I mean, major changes that perhaps someone feels that should have gone
through the process that has been commented on?
MR. CONNELL: Any changes that neither went through the proposal process, I'm
not sure what the question is.
MR. DEVORA: I guess there are --
MR. CONNELL: Do you mean, did we just make some stuff up and throw it in?
[Laughter.]
MR. DEVORA: Did you make anything up that we do not know about? And if so
what is it?
MS. WILLIAMS: Controlling contractor, and all of the issues and discussions,
it really hasn't come up. It did not come up in the December 16 SENRAC meeting.
And other than some comments in the comment periods, I am wondering if the draft
language that we have seemed will primarily, for the most part, stay as written
for the controlling contractors?
MR. CONNELL: Let me first answer his question. We did not make any stuff up,
any things up all by ourselves I don't think. We did take the comments that were
submitted by the public very seriously. We made some changes in response to
those comments. We made a number of changes which were reflected in the draft
final that we submitted to SENRAC on December 16th of last year, and many of
those we are not going to be going forward with, or will be, I think, are going
to be modified to a great extent. So it is a lot closer to the proposal.
Controlling contractor was certainly an issue that received a lot of attention
in the comments. We believe we are addressing those. We are certainly addressing
the comments. Again, I don't think you're going to see a dramatically different
document in that respect than the proposal.
Of course, I am mindful of the fact what's dramatic to one person is minor to
another and vice versa. And since we still are in the concurrence process I
don't think it is appropriate for me to be a lot more specific than that. But
any changes that we make, any substantive changes we made, certainly arose out
of the rulemaking is one way or another.
MS. WILLIAMS: Will we see it by the end of the year?
MR. CONNELL: I'm sorry. I did not hear you.
MS. WILLIAMS: Will we see this by the end of the year?
[Laughter.]
PARTICIPANT: He still didn't hear you.
[Laughter.]
MR. SWANSON: I think, in all fairness to Noah, Subpart R is out of Noah?s
possession. He has nothing to do with the speed with which it advances from this
point forward. Assistant Secretary Jeffress will be here tomorrow. You can ask
him that same question, although I think it is past his gate too. But, it is a
more fair question for a political appointee than for Noah.
MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Any other discussion with Noah on the standards.
MR. SWANSON: Yeah. Let's go back to MUDCAD for a minute. This body has a
statutory obligation to or right to see all of our proposed standards, and to
comment upon them before we take that proposal forward. The bottom line on why
we are coming up with this direct final is to get around that practice. No. It's
a joke.
[Laughter.]
MR. SWANSON: We do have -- we are going to a direct final, however, that will
not be a proposal. And so what we are doing and what Noah just did and will
share with you later in writing is a better feel for where we are going with
this direct final, and to look for some feedback from this body as to whether
you approve or disapprove of what it is that we are trying to do here with the
direct final and move from '71 to '93.
Should the unreasonable happen and we fail for some reason, technical reason,
on the direct final, we are going to be back to you with a proposal and we'll
have to do it the slow way.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Jane.
MS. WILLIAMS: Noah, could you briefly, if you know, give me the status of
safety and health programs, which I know hasn't really moved anywhere, and PPEs,
where we would be on those issues?
MR. CONNELL: I really don't know a lot about that, although I believe those
are in line behind some other projects at the moment
MR. SWANSON: Also known as ergo victims.
MS. WILLIAMS: That would be true for lockout/tagout?
MR. CONNELL: We are not actively working on lockout/tagout right now.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Michael, you don't have anything. On the -- I guess the
recordkeeping one was supposed to come out in 2001, in January 2001. And my
understanding now is that -- Bruce or Noah correct me if I am wrong -- we are
looking at a big question mark for January of 2002.
MR. SWANSON: I can't help you with that. You know, there is a necessity I am
told that recordkeeping and the general industry ergo standard be aware of each
other and one must be consistent with the other. You need recordkeeping for the
ergo standard as it is presently contemplated to be, but exactly what that date
will be on recordkeeping I cannot tell this body, and neither can Noah. It's not
in our shop.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Okay. Thank you, Noah. Appreciate it. Next on the agenda is a
315 Tower Erection special presentation. And I know one of the people are here.
I think a phone call was made to a second and the third did not make it today.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: It will be at least 15 minutes or longer before Mr.
Marple gets here, so I would suggest maybe taking an extended break.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Okay. Why don't we take a 20 minute break and reconvene at
2:30.
[Brief recess at 2:11 p.m.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: This is the Communication Tower Erection presentation. Harry
Payne, who is a member of ACCSH, Thomas Marple, from Fed OSHA, and Kevin
Beauregard, are here to make the presentation. So, with that, Harry, do you want
to start?
COMMUNICATION TOWER ERECTION |
MR. PAYNE: I would just say in regards to -- I guess my first personal
contact with the issue of communications towers was the parent of a young man
who called me who fell in Onslow County, North Carolina, 120 feet, and he called
me to tell me, in the wake of his boy's death, that he just wanted to tell me to
tell somebody that his boy was a very careful, very responsible person. And he
did not know what else to say but he just wanted to tell somebody that.
And I think over the years since then we've seen this tragedy grow, we have
adopted some fall protection standards that are still challenged in the
communication tower area. I think we've lost now five people -- now six people
this year -- in hazards of the construction maintenance of the communication
towers.
I am very honored today that we have our number 2 person in OSHA, Kevin
Beauregard, who comes to us with a safety and health background. And he has
worked with us a little less now than 10 years, I believe, about nine. And he is
also OSHAPA's nominee to the Secretary to fill the slot on this Committee that I
presently occupy.
So, it works out nicely for us that this is a chance for not only for us to
hear a more about what the State is doing in the way of dealing with the hazards
of communication towers, but also for Kevin to get the chance to get to know the
role in the function of ACCSH. Kevin.
MR. BEAUREGARD: Thank you all. I'll try to wake everybody up and I promise
not to introduce any motions.
[Laughter.]
MR. BEAUREGARD: This is a homecoming for me. A lot of people don't like to
come to Washington, but I was born and raised in this area. I lived in Laurel,
and I have a lot of relatives up there, so I don't mind coming home to this
area.
We started experiencing problems in communication towers probably about five
years ago, in North Carolina. And we looked at it then and said we think this is
going to be an up and coming area that we need to do something in. And we had
talked to some people with Federal OSHA and some other areas and we were under
the impression that there may be a standard coming down the way, so we didn't
actively pursue a standard at that time.
The reason I am here is I understand that Commissioner Payne has filled the
group in a little on a accident that we had in Roane County, North Carolina,
last December, and the group had requested to get some additional information on
that accident. So, I am going to be going over that accident with our findings,
and then I am also going to tell you a little bit about some proposed rulemaking
that we have going on in North Carolina on communication towers.
This is the first time I've used this computer, so be patient with me. The
fatality that we had in Roane County, the name of the company is Quality Tower
Company. It was a painting contractor. And basically what they were contracted
to do was to paint a radio tower, and replace the beacon at the top of the
tower, install 13 rest platforms, remove cable, replace transmission cable, and
replace some antenna elements.
The qualifications these people had is somewhat limited, but that is what
they were contracted to do. After they started the work, the owner of the tower
that hired them had some trepidation because they were handling some very
expensive cable in a manner that they did not think was necessarily a good way
to go with that expensive cable; had nothing to do with the safety or health
issue.
So, they terminated that part of their contract and hired another contractor
to actually run the cable up the tower. And so that's what occurred.
After that occurred -- I'm sorry, this is a picture. It is kind of a far off
picture to get the whole communication tower, and we had to climb a mountain.
But this is a 1,500 foot tower. It kind of gives you some idea of how far up
these people were. And they actually went up to the top of that tower. The
beacon is at the very top of the tower. It's a 1,420-foot tower with an antenna
that is 80 feet on top of that, and the beacon is on top of the antenna. And the
only way to get up on top of the antenna, there is a ladder up to that 80-foot
point and then you've got to climb it manually. There is nothing to tie off to.
And we know that they did get on top because they did replace the beacon. And
the contractor, to prove he replaced the beacon, took a picture between his legs
with no fall protection looking down with the beacon. So you can see the beacon
in the photo. I don't have that picture. We do know he did it.
Here's a synopsis of the accident itself. It's a small company. There was a
40-year owner of the company and primarily they were a painting contractor. He
had a 16-year-old son with him, a 19-year-old friend of the family, and then the
wife was on the ground.
They began painting the tower around the end of October after the cable that
I mentioned previously was installed by other contractor. Takes about four hours
to ascend this tower if they climb it by hand, and it takes about 15 minutes to
ascend it via capstan hoist.
So, as you can probably surmise, they opted to go with the capstan hoist
because it only took 15 minutes to go up.
They equipped the capstan hoist. And I will show you what a picture of it
looks like for those that are not familiar with it. But it's a hoist that you
can attach to the bottom frame of the tower and raise equipment up. They had
equipment with about 3,000 feet of nylon rope. It was three-quarter inch. In
order to get that length they spliced five pieces of rope together and then they
taped over the spices.
The hoist that they used was designed to lift only material. They did, in
fact, use the lift material and three employees all at the same time.
They had it attached to a pulley up around a 1,420 foot area. That's what the
rope was going through. And what the owner did was, again to keep from having to
climb up four hours every time they wanted to go up, they decided they were
going to hoist themselves up on this. And the owner tied three loops into the
rope for a foothold. Each person would put one foot in the loop and then they
would hook off if they could and then raise up.
In order to do that, the employees had to climb up about 20 feet up the tower
because you can't start on the ground level. So the three employees went up the
tower in succession and they all got into the footholds. And they hooked to the
loops with their position devices and they were doing what they call
"riding the line." And they were directly adjacent. This tower is a
seven-foot triangular structure and that's what they were doing to get up.
The quick review of our findings was the hoist that was used wasn't designed
to lift employees, but it was used to lift employees. The rope did come off the
hoist drum; unfortunately, the wife was on the ground when that occurred. She
tried in vain to keep it from coming down. She had rope burns all over her
hands. There's no way somebody's going to keep three people and equipment
falling 3,000 feet on the ground. So she watched her husband and son and friend
of the family land right next to her.
The employees used either a body belt or a full body harness as positioning
devices instead of fall protection equipment. They did not have the lanyards
hooked up properly. They were using them as positioning devices. I'll show you
some pictures in a few minutes.
The employees were not attached to a separate lifeline. They were all
attached to a hoisting line. There is a requirement, of course, in the standards
that you have a separate lifeline. They didn't. They were all hooked onto the
same line, so as the line fell they fell.
This is the warning that actually came off the capstan hoist that they were
using. And I don't know if you can read this in the back, but it has a bunch of
do's and do not's. And about three or four down there it says, "do not lift
people or loads over people." They were lifting three people and a load and
they were lifting three people and a load over people.
And you can see down at the bottom a little illustration on what the hoist
looks like, and that's how the rope wraps around the hoist. I am not so sure
they even had the rope on the hoist correctly, to begin with. This is the actual
capstan hoist that is located on one of the legs of the tower. You can see it
over towards the center of the photograph. That rope off to the left is the rope
that slipped that?s hanging from pulley up top. But that is what everything was
hooked into.
It is an ABC Chance capstan hoist. We did not find anything wrong with the
hoist. The hoist was as designed, but it wasn't designed to lift people. This is
the brother of the victim. He is demonstrating to our compliance officer how he,
because he sometimes worked with his brother, how they hooked up and used the
fall protection equipment. I don't know if you can tell it from this photo, but
they didn't -- one or two of the individuals didn't fasten the harness around
his legs. And we've had accidents where people just fall right through the
harness if they don't have it.
Also, you can see the lanyards he's using there and that lanyard is not
hooked off to the back. And this is what they were using for a positioning
device; it's hooked off to his waist. And that's how the individuals were using
these. This is the actual positioning device of one of the individuals that
fell. What we've found was that the lock was taped shut. It had a locking
positioning device, but they taped it shut so the employees could have quick
access to it. They wouldn't have to worry about it being locked out. It was
attached to D rings near the waist of the employee. And that is what he has in
his left hand over there. This is just a close-up of the previous picture. It
was used strictly as a positioning device. Again, they were not using it as fall
protection. They were using it as positioning device as they were working. Even
when they were riding up on the line they weren't locked in, in any way.
This is just the pulley. It's a standard pulley that was used at the top. And
this is what the rope was over. It's just a standard. I think the Makissick is
the brand name. Again, we did not find anything wrong with the pulley. It just
happened to be a piece of equipment that was in use. Mckissock does not want
their stuff used to lift people. And this particular pulley, again, it wasn't
designed to do that. It was designed to lift material.
This shows you one of the loops. This is the bottom of the rope they were
using, the nylon rope. That loop on the right-hand side was what the third
person down had their foot in. So that is pretty much when I say they were in a
loop. That's all they were in. They were riding this thing up 1500 feet in that
with one with one foot. And on the bottom of that you see a chain in over to the
left, to see a platform, and that was attached to the bottom of the rope and
that's what they were using to haul up their equipment. It was on the very
bottom and three people in succession over top of one another.
This is a close-up area in the tower where they were, the area they were
around when the accident occurred. It's hard to distinguish because the nylon
rope is white. But it is running down near the center of that tower. There it is
on the backside of the tower. And the reason I show you the picture is here is
the other side coming on the other side of the tower. And when I get into a few
more slides I will tell you why we think that is probably significant in this
case.
We know that the rope came off of the hoist. What we didn't know was why. We
had it narrowed down to a few things. One of it was these splices were all
covered with tape. And what happened when they went around the hoist, it was
very slick, and as they went around the hoist it slipped a little. So, that may
have called a jerking motion that began the whole thing. It's just they were
just guessing, to be quite frank with you. The wife told us that had occurred
before. We don't know if that's the actual cause.
What we also learned was that work platform that you saw in the previous
picture had caught up on the tower previously and kind of like, I guess, if
you've ever been fishing and you throw a fishing rod in there, and you snag on
something in the bottom, and you can't get it loose, and you can't get it loose,
and all of a sudden it breaks, and the line goes flying back, well that had
happened a couple of times when they were raising the people before. And it
hadn't resulted in a fall, but what happened was it put slack in the line. And
we think that may be an indication of what happened because of the way that the
rope was wrapped around tower.
And the other option is that it may not have been wrapped correctly on the
hoist, to begin with. If you recall from the earlier placard that was on the
hoist itself, it indicated how it should have been wrapped on the hoist.
The wife was the sole surviving employee of the company. She wasn't a
co-owner of Quality Tower so we did not issue citations because there was nobody
left to issue citations to. However, we found so many things wrong in this case,
we didn't want to leave it just at that. So we did review the findings with the
wife in case she were to go into business or take over the business. We
certainly wanted to make sure they did things correctly, and we did issue an
industry alert.
I handed out some packages. And there is a yellow -- the Committee members
have a yellow flier. And that is an industry alert that we put out. And we did
do a mailing in North Carolina of various owners and other entities to get this
message out. And for those folks that don't have a yellow one in your packet,
there is a copy of the industry alert. It's just on eight and a half by 11
paper. But we wanted to get the word out as to what we found.
The findings were that there wasn't any training. None of the people had been
trained in any manner, which is a little bit scary when you think that someone's
going up a 1500-foot tower and they hadn't received any type of training in
working on a 1500-foot tower in regards to safety and health.
They did not have the appropriate PPE. They didn't use locking snap hooks.
Lifelines weren't secured over the employees' heads. Lanyards were not of
sufficient strength. And if you noticed these, these are all 1926 references.
They were doing painting at one point, which is considered construction
activity. They were also doing some activities that would be considered
maintenance under the telecommunication standard. So, depending on what they
were actually doing at the time may depend on what, if anything, they would have
been cited for if there was actually an employer left to cite.
Lack of separate lifelines. They did not have. They were all tied on the same
line. They didn't really have a lifeline. Anchorages used for fall arrest were
also used for raising the platform. They didn't have any separate entity or
item. They did use body belts. One of them did have a body belt as opposed to a
full body harness. And they also suspended things off of their belts as well as
the platform at the bottom. They had buckets of paint and other things hanging
off of their belts as they were going up.
The fall arrest system was attached to a hoist, which is, again, prohibited
by 502. And the employer did not comply with the hoist manufacturer's
specifications. You could see from the tag that they said, don't use this to
lift people and/or loads over people.
We also had some areas of the general duty clause that we thought were
pertinent. I don't know if this body is aware of the NATE guidelines, National
Association Tower Erectors guidelines, but they do have guidelines, and even
within those guidelines they weren't following those guidelines.
There is a reason why I am addressing this group on this issue. That gets
into my next couple of slides. That is a synopsis on the fatality itself. And at
the end of the presentation if anybody has any questions I'll be glad to answer
them.
Like I said before, about four or five years ago we experienced probably our
first tower fatality. Within the last several years -- and I gave Harry some
incorrect information a few minutes ago -- but we have had a number of
fatalities within the last few years.
This is kind of a synopsis. In '98, we had one individual fall during
construction of a tower. In '99 we had a 40-year-old fall from a tower. In 2000,
in December, we had those three painters die in Roane County. That is the
accident I just reviewed with you. In June of this year, we had a 32-year-old
laborer fall during construction activities of a tower. And just last week on
the 6th, in Charlotte, we had an employee fall 60 feet from a communication
tower. He was seriously hurt but he was also very lucky because on the way down
his harness got caught on a foot peg and that's what saved his life. So he
didn't hit the ground. He got caught on a foot peg about 20 feet from the
ground. But we came very close to having another fatality just last week. And we
are still investigating that. That appears like it may have been a case where
there was some equipment that was faulty.
MS. SWEENEY: Excuse me. These are only in North Carolina?
MR. BEAUREGARD: These are only North Carolina.
MS. SWEENEY: And we have 50 states.
MR. BEAUREGARD: And I am going to go over that too. In North Carolina, we
decided we need to do something. We do think it is a national issue and we think
it's a national problem.
In your report you will see some face reports which are fatality assessment
reports done by NIOSH. I'm told that information should be available on the Web
site fairly soon. If you look in there most of them are North Carolina reports,
but I don't want to mislead this group in thinking that it is only a North
Carolina problem.
We participated in the face study with NIOSH. We are one of four other States
that do. So that is why they have the North Carolina data, because every time we
have an incident we report it to them. And then they send out investigator and
they generally work with our investigator either after or during the fact to get
that information. But North Carolina, has participated in that since 1984. So,
don't think it's not a problem elsewhere.
It used to bother me because I did not know that we were one of five
participants of that program. And every time I saw one of those, you know, North
Carolina was on two-thirds of them. And I said, boy 45 other States your doing a
great job.
That's the reason why you don't see any other States on that. But this is a
booming industry. Probably most of the people in this room have a cellphone or a
pager that probably wasn't the case even five years ago. About five years ago
there was only about 50,000 towers in the country; now they're building about 20
to 50,000 towers a year in the country.
There's 49 to 468 deaths per 100,000 employees versus five deaths per 100,000
in all other U.S. industries. The reason such a range up top is because there is
no direct way to peg down how many deaths there actually are that were
attributed to towers, because there are so many different SIC codes that work on
towers. And that's the problem we run into within OSHA in trying to target and
pinpoint who do we get the alerts out to, who do we talk to.
In the Roane County case it was a painter. You wouldn't associate generally
painters as being the people that climb up towers. But there is also erectors.
NATE says there is about 6-9,000 companies that do you erection that are their
members, and they feel that those are the main people that do the erections. I
think there are other people that are into the business now. It's a very
lucrative business. There is a lot of what we're finding: untrained or
unqualified employees in the business.
And another issue we have is towers go up quick. You can get a tower up once
you had the footers poured in about three days, depending on what size the
towers is.
So, we don't have a real good way of targeting the sites. So, unfortunately,
we find out about them either through an accident or we're driving down the road
and you see one being erected. So there is in issue there.
There were 118 deaths that we know of from '92 to '98 that were directly
attributed to falls, from towers and 93 of those were falls. The 468 figure is
probably more correct. The 118 are only the ones associated that we know from
that SIC code that would be a tower erector.
All of these are figures coming from NIOSH. They are not my figures, they are
NIOSH figures. The figures from North Carolina I have. But I don't have State
figures so we use NIOSH.
NIOSH did do a study as a result of those face reports, and Vergil Casini, I
believe is his name -- if there is someone from NIOSH they might be able to
confirm that -- was the project coordinator. And he was in North Carolina
yesterday actually giving us a presentation on some new projects that they're
doing. And he had indicated that either a letter had gone to Charles Jeffress or
was going to Charles Jeffress shortly with the findings of their investigation,
or their project, and with recommendations.
And, just briefly, the recommendations were: there is a 100 percent tie off
when you are doing towers.
We felt, in North Carolina, that we just don't have sufficient standards to
monitor the industry. Subpart M does not apply to tower erecting or dismantling,
and that's where the construction tie-in comes in. It does cover you if you are
painting, or doing something after it's already erected, but it is not covered
by Subpart M.
The whole thing about these steel erections -- and we are still working on
the steel erection standard -- there is some ties in there. There is also a
couple of memos out there and a couple of directives that say towers aren't
covered by the construction standards.
So, those are some of the problems we're having, in that we don't have
construction standards for the construction end of it. Now, there are some
standards, but they are like 105 having to do with the PPE or the steel erection
standard, which is very limited in scope as written as applicable to towers, and
there are some ladder standards and some other things, but there's no direct
standard such as Subpart M.
CPL 2-1.29 and OPN 122, which you have a copy in you packets, established a
guidance currently in North Carolina for these type of activities. And we are
limited to, like I said, the standards that you see listed there. And the
general duty clause which we do site, we have cited in North Carolina and
fatalities.
In general industry, we do have the telecommunications standards. It is
applicable to maintenance and rearrangement or removal of communication
equipment. Some of the activities that these people in Roane County were engaged
in would certainly fall under that category. It's not applicable to
construction, however. We think that there are some problems with the 1910
standards as well. It does allow the use of a body belt as opposed to a full
body harness, safety belts or straps. It does have a four-foot rule requirement
for use of PPE unless you are working from a platform that is guarded. And,
again, there is a couple of directives and interpretations out on that.
It does not have a locking snap hook requirement, so a device that was used
like the one you saw could be used in telecommunications. So, what we have done
in North Carolina is we have started the rulemaking process. We have announced a
proposed anticipation of a proposed rulemaking. We had a meeting in July. We did
have a representative from NATE there, most of the other representatives were
in-house North Carolina representatives. We have another stakeholder meeting
scheduled for December 8 at 9:00 in the North Carolina Museum of History in
downtown Raleigh, if any of you have an interest in this. I would encourage you
to come and participate, or if you know people we have invited the owners, MCI,
Sprint, AT&T, to people that own these towers.
Our goal is to have a standard in place by 2002. There is a timeline in your
packet as well. These are proposed standards. And I have to stress that they are
just proposed. At this time we do not have a standard written. We do not have a
proposed standard written. We have some ideas of some of the elements we want to
see in a standard, and these are the elements that we are looking at right now.
A competent person element, training element that talks about content
documentation and performance; a fall protection element that talks about the
specifications of equipment in hoisting equipment. That would probably include
some of the information from NATE, et cetera.
But, again, this is a very early stage in our rulemaking process. And we are
thinking about a tower owner involvement responsibility somewhere in the
confined space.
We do think that tower owners are critical in this process, as well as
manufacturers of tower components. We have not met a person erecting a tower yet
that has told us if they had tie-off points they would tie off to them. The fact
of the matter is, many of them don't have a place to tie off to when they are
erecting these. The manufacturers don't really want to put tie offs on there
because it adds weight to the structure, and any weight they add to the
structure is weight that they can't hang something else on. And everything they
can hang on one of those towers is money and these things pay for themselves in
a couple months.
We do think speaking on that just for another moment what is going to even
accelerate the tower problem. And I think the falls from towers is
high-definition TV, HDTV is common; they are getting ready for it right now.
They've started equipping some of the towers and these towers go up quite a bit.
And it is my understanding at least some of these to prevent interference from
the signal. They have erected these HDTV arms about 20 feet out from the tower.
There is nothing to tie off to when they are out there.
So, again, I think we are going to see another problem if we don't get into
talking to the manufacturers and the owners about providing some type of place
or mechanism for people to tie off. We have had some employers in North Carolina
come up with some very good systems that do prevent people from falling. And,
unfortunately, most of these companies that did this did this after they had an
employee fall and die.
And then there is a section for other things that perhaps we haven't thought
about yet that I am sure some of the groups are going to bring up that are going
to be in there. If you do have any information that you have or others want to
contribute, Jack Forshey, and Evette McGovernor are leading this effort in North
Carolina. His phone number is up there. You can also call our 1-800 number and
get him or you can call me. All of our members on our web site as well. But we
would appreciate any input anybody has on this subject. I do think it's going to
be a matter that every State is going to have to address at one point on
another. And I think this body is going to be addressing it probably at some
point.
That's my presentations in a nutshell. I just wanted to fill everybody in on
what's going on, what we are doing, and give an opportunity for anybody who has
input or if anybody has any questions at this time I will be glad to answer
them.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Thank you, Kevin. We've all heard about that tragic incident
that happened with the family. A lot of us in the business are getting in more
and more into tower erection, and holes and poles and cells and ditches, and
it's a unique part of the construction that is not addressed currently by OSHA
or other standards. Jane.
MS. WILLIAMS: Sir, have you seen any change in the owners' attitudes because
of the numbers of fatalities by them taking initiatives to write in safety
training and/or safety requirements into their language to these people who are
performing such work functions?
MR. BEAUREGARD: I won't say we haven't seen any activity towards that, but I
will say that I haven't seen a lot. And, again, I don't want to guess to the
reason, but I do know it is a huge industry. And what I keep hearing time and
time again is, we have a hard time enough finding bodies to put these things up,
never mind putting stipulations on them and how they've got to do it.
I think if they keep experiencing the fatalities at the rate they're doing it
they are going to have to do something. I don't know what the workers' comp rate
is for someone who does this type of work but I can't imagine it can be low, it
they know the people doing it.
I bet you the painter -- the people who insured that painter didn't know what
those people were doing.
MR. BURKHAMMER: There is a phrase in the business that a lot of these owners
are using called "time to market." It is crucial. The time to market
issue is a crucial issue, because there are so many of these owners, so to
speak, forming these corporations based on mergers and acquisitions in the
communications industry. You have the AT&T's and the Sprints and the ones
who have been out there a while, of course, doing their thing, but you've got a
lot of the now, Winn and Nextel and Tomorrowtel and somewhere tell, that they
combine these things. And they hire a contractor and they send him out there a
three or four billion dollar contract and they hire 250, 300, 500 subs,
depending on how many States they need to erect this stuff in, and they throw
these things up in 5 to 8 to 10 days, and they are done. And they are erecting
barely daylight until a little bit after dark. They have a lighting problem;
they can't see. You saw examples of the fall protection nonexistent. They get
material out there any way they can. And they build the towers from the ground
up and the higher you get the more difficult it is.
So it's a very difficult situation, even the contractors we hire to do this.
It's finding someone that really understands and knows tower erection is
difficult because there are not a lot of companies out there that know how to do
it. They can do electrical transmission towers very well, but when they come to
these heights it's a new ballgame.
MR. BEAUREGARD: And there's many different types and configurations of
towers. And some of them -- right now there are feasible ways to provide fall
protection, some of them, to be honest with you. I don't know. There are some
towers that are cylindrical in design that are smooth, kind of like a telephone
pole, and those are the types that again, if the manufacturers put something to
tie off on you have something to tie off to, otherwise, there is not even
anything you can physically tie off on.
MR. BURKHAMMER: That's right. Marie.
MS. SWEENEY: I have a couple of questions. First, would you put the last
slide back on with the phone number? Thank you.
MR. BEAUREGARD: We also have a 1-800 labor NC number that we will be glad to
take calls in on.
MS. SWEENEY: I have two other questions. One is, have you had any resistance
by the industry to this regulation, and what are they contributing to this
effort? And the other thing is, if you have a regulation how are you going to
enforce it if you don't have enough bodies deal with it? And, you know, your
State of North Carolina. I'm thinking about 50 States.
MR. BEAUREGARD: I guess I'll take those one any time. We haven't had a lot of
negative feedback from the industry. But I will say we are just starting into
this process, and really the December 8th stakeholders meeting is going to be
the first time that we have a lot of these people together in a room. We had not
met with them separately. We met with some people individually before.
We had met with NATE. They had a representative at our July meeting. I was
not able to be at that meeting so I am not sure what kind of feedback. I don't
think we got any native feedback at that meeting. But I will tell you some of
the things in NATE's proposal. We don't have a problem with NATE's guidelines
that came out if people were actually doing it according to those guidelines.
The problem we have is people aren't, if you look at those guidelines -- like
if these people on this tower were following those guidelines they would have
stood a lot better chance, but they weren't following that.
But, it will be interesting to see. I'm sure we're going to get feedback with
ways on this. The secondary part of it is, North Carolina is probably fortunate
in that our staffing levels in North Carolina are significantly different than
compliance staffing levels in other States. We have 110 safety and health
compliance officers to cover the State of North Carolina, although it's like
210. We are probably better equipped to enforce this in North Carolina than
maybe in some of the other areas.
Again, the issue that we'll have is targeting sites. You have to know where
these things are going to be in order to be there. And they are going up all
over the place. And it is not just limited to towers. If you go by a water tower
you'll see some communication device hanging off of the water tower, or you see
a big billboard up. You'll see them there as well.
Certainly we're trying to find out. We're having a difficult time right now
even targeting the audience. Like I said, there are so many different people in
trades in this business that it is difficult to track exactly how bad the
problem is, but we know, firsthand, there is a problem.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Steve.
MR. CLOUTIER: As a fellow North Carolinian, I am just appalled at the carnage
that is going on in recent years there. I was in Charlotte at the time this
incident happened in Roane County, and I guess what bothers me, if we
established new regulations or rules and guidelines and directives, are we still
going to be able to get out to be mom and pop operations? That's what we had
there? We had a husband and wife, their son, and a friend of theirs, and that
bothers me.
I applaud you for having this December meeting. But I encourage you. As we
see in Carolina, we get all the bad PR all the time when there is an incident.
But we need to get the news media there to champion what you guys are doing and
trying to do the right things and move forward.
Sprint, Nextel, Alltell, Verizon and AT&T, all those guys have gotten
diagrams/drawing of where their next tower is going in. I think we need to tap
into those resources.
I sit on a town council south of Charlotte and they've come to us to put more
towers in. And they know where they're going. They can sit there and tell you
they are going to put 200 towers in in the next year and they know exactly where
it's at. And I think it is up to the Agency to twist their arms so you guys can
focus some manpower to assist them in erecting them.
MR. BEAUREGARD: We may have better success getting them from Charlotte and
the municipalities than from the owners, but we would love to have that
information.
MR. CLOUTIER: And I think we may need to bring the FAA and the FCC in,
because this particular tower was erected. And it was a maintenance-type
operation. They're going up to replace an FAA light. And there are some other
folks we could probably tap into to assist you there. I know for a fact there's
6-700 towers going up in North Carolina in the next year or so, and if Carolina
is like anywhere else its nationwide it's a plaque, and we are concerned. And I
know the manpower shortage that's going on.
MR. BEAUREGARD: One carrier told us they were planning on erecting 6,000,
just one carrier.
MR. CLOUTIER: And those guys will come and they will ride the seat every time
because they would rather ride the seat than climb.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Jane.
MS. WILLIAMS: Nothing.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Bruce.
MR. SWANSON: Yeah. Harry, maybe you are in the best position to answer this.
But with what is happening in North Carolina would there be any hope to ride
this wave and look for State legislation? We can't get it through Congress, but
State legislation in North Carolina, that would require the owners to notify
some governmental agency. Labor Department might be a good one, as to where
these towers are going to be erected and approximately when for a year out
front, I mean, municipalities know.
MR. PAYNE: I think in that limited approach I think we'd like to know housing
starts too, but in a limited situation where the hazard is conspicuous I think
there is probability of that. I don't think it would go without objection. I
don't think it would pass by an overwhelming amount, but I believe it would
pass. You would have a lot of noise, but I think it would be if we could
demonstrate, particularly if we led first with education.
Our history is with the industry and with other industries that they don't
mind compliance if you will lead first with education. So, that they tell us a
year ahead of time tell us who you're going to use, we will start contacting
them and working with them. I think we could do that and then could follow up by
knowing that we could get on the compliance side too.
Now, our history is that if we can industry it's like, not unlike harvesting
trees in North Carolina. It is a small enough industry. It's high hazard. They
all know the hazards. And as long as it makes sense, the approach then they are
very approachable to both education in compliance.
Our problem is forever the three guys in a pickup truck. Whether that be in
this kind of construction we can't find them. They're not licensed. I mean, it's
just wild.
MR. SWANSON: That is why the owner or someone has to tell you when they will
be and where.
MR. PAYNE: I think that is the way. And you can attach that to some other
licensure.
MR. SWANSON: And you've got the stack of bodies right now too. I mean, your
state has the advantage of having all these problems.
MR. PAYNE: It is a real honest problem that we're seeing everywhere and this
is one that the owners acknowledge. We have not gotten any resistance.
MR. SWANSON: Kevin, when you say that you are going to involve the owners, do
you in South Carolina have what we don't have at the federal level? I'm not
familiar with your law. Can you regulate the owners?
MR. BEAUREGARD: No. Not as it currently stands we can't. But we want to get
participation, so I don't anticipate seeing anything in the standard.
MR. SWANSON: So this will be an educational outreach type program to the
owners.
MR. BEAUREGARD: Right. We're going to try to show them that it will be in
their better interest to work with us in this matter. I was thinking maybe Harry
could put in an amendment to the ergonomics rule in North Carolina.
[Laughter.]
MR. PAYNE: We are going to get to that too. But my thinking is that there is,
this is the kind of area where we could make some progress legislatively,
ergonomics not so, but this is one where there's no discussion over the scope of
the problem. And the solutions are not always clear, but I think if we come up
with the best core solutions and drive them forward and maybe require notice
without regulation. I don't know.
MR. SWANSON: We do have some solutions, I mean the directive that the Federal
Government and NATE worked out, and presumably the direction your standard is
going, has some answer in there that if people operated that way, we could do so
far more safely than we aren't doing now. The problem -- and we all recognize it
-- is we don't know where ma and pa are going to be. And you can have the best
directive in the world. If nobody is reading it or following it, it does you no
good.
MR. PAYNE: In that way it is not unlike harvesting trees. They are in the
woods. We can't find them. They are here today; they are gone tomorrow. And some
kind of closer connection is critical in terms of progress.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Steve.
MR. CLOUTIER: They had done a good job in North Carolina with the other end
of the communications market of all the buried underground conduits, fiber
optics. And when you go by those job sites the guys are using the flow molds and
putting in the manholes. They've got their personal protective equipment on. And
they are using trench boxes and appropriate barricades. So if you tackle that
end of the business and have at a fairly decent record there. But we've got to
get these owners involve. And I can say that AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon then
know where they are putting the towers in. They know exactly where the market
demand -- when your cellphone goes. And you're Po'ed, and you call them up and
say what's going on. The heat is on and they're ready to hit the market. It is a
critical move to market.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Thank you, Kevin. Tom.
MR. MARPLE: Thank you, Mr. Burkhammer. I feel kind of guilty following Kevin
up here with all the information he has shared. I was asked to come today to
give you all a briefing on where the OSHA is with our negotiations with the
tower erections industry and with the status of CPL 2-1.29, which is the interim
procedures for tower erection and activity.
As you all know, OSHA has been working with NIOSH, and with the tower
erection industry for several years now trying to address many of the hazards
that affect the tower erection industry. About 21 months ago, in January 1999,
we came out with the CPL on the interim procedures for tower erection, and those
procedures contained specific requirements that would allow employers to ride
the line above the 200-foot level on communication towers, but they had to
follow very specific procedures.
I won't go into detail on all of those procedures, but among them was a face
mounted drum hoist would not be permitted to use capstan hoist. You would be
using a wire rope line, fall protection for employees riding the line, no more
than two employees on the line, and a number of other specific requirements.
NATE had wanted OSHA to agree to permit them to ride the line at any height.
And as the time that we entered into this agreement we were not prepared to do
that, so we advised NATE that we would be willing to issue this compliance
directive, and after a period of time we would evaluate statistics on the impact
of this directive and whether or not the employers following this directive were
suffering injuries due to following these procedures.
NATE agreed to have their members complete a questionnaire that would provide
this data to OSHA so we could make a determination on whether or not we should
change the directive on whether or not we should allow employers to ride the
line at lower levels.
We developed a questionnaire that was sent out last year to NATE members and
it didn't get a very good response. Part of that was because, in NATE's opinion,
the questions were not specific enough or direct enough to the information that
OSHA was seeking.
We worked for several months to try to come up with a new questionnaire. And
we just met with NATE and NIOSH in August of this year to discuss the
questionnaire and we came to the conclusion, NATE, NIOSH and OSHA, that really
the only way that they were going to get an effective response to the
questionnaires was to do an individual survey. And NATE agreed that they would
do a telephone survey of their members to determine which members were following
the OSHA directive, whether or not there had been any incidents related to
riding the line or other compliance procedures according to the directive, and
that they would get at a firm count of those incidents for the Agency to be able
to make a determination whether or not this directive is providing effective
safety and health to the employees.
Another issue that was addressed was the genpoles on the towers. As you all
know, there are no regulations that address genpoles. NATE had agreed to work
with OSHA and with some industry groups to come up with specific standards for
the construction, installation, maintenance, and use of the genpoles on towers.
They believe that they are going to have a recommendation for ANSI ready for
submitting to ANSI by February of 2001.
We discussed the potential of partnerships between OSHA, NIOSH, NATE, and in
some cases communication tower owners. We have some regions that already have
partnerships with NATE and with tower owners in the industry addressing the
hazards that employees face when working on these towers.
We have a partnership that we are currently working on at the national level
that should be ready within a few weeks for us to send out to our regional
administrators for comment and to try to get back and get an effective
partnership going with NATE. And essentially what NATE wants from a partnership,
is it wants our agreement that if they're all following the guidelines that have
been established between NATE and OSHA they simply want an agreement that we
would treat that as a focused inspection when we come on their job site, and
that we'll take the time that we saved by doing that focused inspection and go
to those job sites, the towers where employees are not following the guidelines.
NATE has also informed us that they would like to have the Assistant
Secretary send a letter to tower owners asking the owners to take an interest in
the safety and health of the employers who are doing the work on the
communication towers, and asking the owners to provide information such as the
CPL 2-1.29, to the tower owners, and asking them to put in their contracts that
the contractors must comply with these procedures when working on the towers.
I agree with Kevin when he talks about the problems with targeting. All of
our offices have told us pretty much that there is difficulties even where they
have local emphasis programs and targeting the towers for inspection. Virtually
all of our inspections that are not related to an incident are conducted based
on a compliance officer spotting a tower under construction and stopping to
conduct an inspection at that time of the tower procedures.
Federal OSHA currently does not have a list of employers that are engaged in
tower construction and the worksites that they are on and we have similar
problems at the State level.
MR. BEAUREGARD: I was hoping you had a list.
MR. MARPLE: We could probably get a list of companies engaged in tower
erection, but that still wouldn't tell us where they are and when. And there is
a quick turnaround on a tower once they start the erection.
I would be happy to answer any of your questions regarding what the
directorate of construction is doing right now with regard to the tower
industry.
MR. BURKHAMMER: I guess it's interesting that NATE is sending out a survey to
its members asking if they are in compliance. That's just like asking the fox
after he raids the henhouse how many hens were left.
MR. MARPLE: It's not quite that simple. It's not simply are you in
compliance? They start out with, have you had any injuries in the past year? And
they ask for a description of the injuries, how the injuries occurred. And then
they go back to relate to, are you riding the hoist line? If you are riding the
hoist line, are you -- then they ask questions with regard to what the
procedures require.
Part of the problem was originally they wanted to do that. Are you in
compliance? And that really wouldn't get --
[Laughter.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Mr. Buchet.
MR. BUCHET: In our data collections workgroup yesterday we were talking with
the Dodge people about how much more information they can get for us. Have you
asked them at all to see how quickly they can find tower erection sites or if
they can find them?
MR. MARPLE: We have not.
MR. BUCHET: Theoretically, they keep telling us that every day they are
sending 1000 reporters out there scouring around picking up building permits and
all that sort of stuff, now finding out where it's supposed to be and actually
finding when it's on the ground is a different thing, but at least if we had
some idea of where to look.
MR. MARPLE: Well, I have been told that the FAA does have the list of sites
where towers will go up because most of these have the potential to create a
hazard to air traffic. There has been some difficulty in getting that list from
FAA. And the other issue, of course is, here is a site where a tower is going to
go up in a metropolitan area and they are going to start building. That is what
really creates the major problem with targeting.
MR. HUDOCK: If I may, Mr. Chairman, one thing I thought of in this discussion
that I am going to try before the meeting in a couple of months is to write to
owners that we have access to in North Carolina and ask them would you either
tell us or show up at the meeting where your planned sites are. We are hoping to
avoid the necessity of going through a legislative action, and see what kind of
response we get. Either way, I think it helps us because it gives us ammo to
say, look, we tried.
MR. BURKHAMMER: And it may scare some of them into responding.
MR. HUDOCK: Yeah. And I think that might be a possibility.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Any other discussion?
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Thank you, Tom. Thank you, Kevin. Thank you, Harry. We
appreciate it.
Mr. Cloutier.
MR. CLOUTIER: Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Noah Connell leaves, he bought up an
item as he was sharing with his DOC legislative update, and I think this
committee would be remiss if we failed to entertain a motion this afternoon. And
I'd like to make a motion that ACCSH support the inserts of the direct final
rule, incorporating the 1993 DOT manual, uniform manual on traffic control
devices regarding their sign, signals, and barricades standards. And before I
end the motion, I am also aware that DOT has a 1999 edition out, and why are we
not adopting that? And, Noah, maybe you can address that before I end my motion,
if you would, sir?
MR. CONNELL: DOT is working on amending the 1993 version. They are working on
a proposal. The problem is that we face choices of do we wait for that
rulemaking to move through its many stages to conclusion? And in the meantime
we're sitting on our 1971 manual. Or do we go ahead and use the already in-place
1993 rule? And the Agency made the judgment that the 1993 manual is so much
better than what we have and the incremental improvement between the 93 one and
what they're proposing for 2000. It's not the entire ballgame but, you know, we
would be so much better off that we felt, let's do it now. Let's get it in place
and let's worry about improving it later.
MR. CLOUTIER: Thank you for that clarification. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I
make a motion that the ACCSH support the issuance of a final rule incorporating
the 1993 DOT UMTCD manual regarding signs, signals and barricades. This will
help accelerate the revision, and it will certainly assist employers and workers
who are working on our highways.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Thank you, Mr. Cloutier. Do I hear a second?
MR. RHOTEN: Second.
MR. BURKHAMMER: Seconded by Mr. Rhoten. Discussion?
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Hearing none, all in favor of the motion as read signify
about saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Opposed.
[No response.]
MR. BURKHAMMER: Approved. Thank you, Mr. Cloutier. If you would pass that
motion over to either Noah or Bruce or Jim. We have nobody that has passed me a
note for public comment today, so based on that, the meeting is adjourned until
tomorrow morning at 9:00 in this room.
[Whereupon, at 3:34 p.m., the meeting was recessed to be reconvened on
September 15, 2000, at 9:00 a.m.]
This is to certify that the foregoing hearing of the Advisory Committee on
Construction Safety and Health, as reported by the undersigned, held on
Thursday, September 14, 2000, was transcribed as herein appears, and this is the
original transcript thereof.
________________________
GERALD BROOKS, SR.
Court Reporter
Notary Public for the State of Maryland
My Commission expires: August 15th, 2001
|
|
|
|