March 19, 2008

OSHA Docket Office

Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675

U. S. Department of Labor

Room N-2625

200 Constitution Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20210

(via Electronic Submission)

*Please find comments from Bath Iron Works regarding 29 CFR Parts 1910
and 1915, General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment, Proposed
Rule, Subpart F (Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675)*

**1915.81 Housekeeping**

**1915.81(d)**

Maintaining dry working surfaces is not practical. Every location in a
shipyard and on a vessel has the potential to be a working surface.
Maintaining a dry condition in all these locations is simply not
feasible. The paragraph can be interpreted that if maintaining these
areas dry is not practical, then the employer must provide waterproof
foot gear. BIW does not believe that simply because it rains out that
they have the responsibility to provide PPE to the workforce, nor that
this was the intent of the paragraph. BIW suggests that additional
clarification is needed to explain that providing waterproof foot gear
is only required when "wet processes" are involved. BIW also recommends
that "painting and cleaning" be removed from the summary and explanation
as examples of wet processes. These are misleading, as waterproof foot
gear may not be the best protection for these types of jobs. Many
waterproof rubbers will dissolve in solvents used in the painting
process and "cleaning" is too broad of a process definition. Cleaning a
tank containing an acid requires more than "waterproof" footgear.

**1915.81(g)**

"The employer shall ensure that slippery conditions, such as snow and
ice, on walking and working surfaces are eliminated as they occur."

BIW believes this paragraph needs clarification. Additional language is
necessary to explain when OSHA expects snow and ice to be removed. It is
not practical to remove snow "as it occurs" especially if a storm lasts
for two days. Removing it as it occurs would require constant attention
throughout the facility rather than removing the snow after the storm.
BIW recommends that the wording be revised to:

"The employer shall ensure that slippery conditions, such as snow and
ice, on walking and working surfaces are eliminated as soon as practical
after they occur."

**1915.81(j)**

"The employer shall ensure that flammable substances, such as paint
thinners, solvents, rags and waste, are stored in covered fire-resistant
containers when not in use."

BIW requests that clarification be provided to this paragraph. It
appears that OSHA is addressing fire hazards in the housekeeping
standard. Fire hazards are already addressed in Subpart P, and the
housekeeping standard contradicts those requirements.

Subpart P allows options on how to prevent fire hazards. Unused (new)
rags are typically transported in plastic bags to the shipboard work
site, where they are used when necessary. They are protected from fire
under the provisions of subpart P. Having contradicting requirements
will confuse the issue. BIW recommends that paragraph (j) be deleted as
it is already addressed in Subpart P.

**1915.81 (k)**

BIW agrees that "combustible" scrap should be addressed as a fire hazard
and believes that OSHA has already accomplished that in Subpart P. This
section contradicts Subpart P, which offers additional options on how to
control combustible materials. Removing them is only one option.
Protecting the combustible materials or shielding the hot work, which
OSHA has deemed are as effective, should not be eliminated as viable
options. BIW recommends that this paragraph be deleted, as it is already
addressed in Subpart P.

**1915.82 Lighting**

**1915.82(b)**

BIW recommends that OSHA consider deleting this paragraph as it is
better explained in 1910 Subpart S and we also believe that subpart S
provides a better location in the OSHA regulations for these
requirements. Having electrical requirements in several locations in the
regulations makes it difficult for employers to comply.

**1915.82(c)(2)**

BIW provides flashlights to our employees, however, it is impractical to
assume that all employees will have them readily available at all times.
Flashlights are frequently left in tool boxes, tool bags or in one of
several work areas where employees are assigned. It is rare for an
employee to carry his/her flashlight on their person. Knowing this, BIW
informs our employees to remain still if the lights go out until
assistance arrives or the lighting reactivates. If they happen to have
their flashlight on their person, they can move freely and assist other
personnel. This procedure has proven to be effective and is frequently
exercised at our facility during power outages.

**1915.83 Utilities**

**1915.83(a)(1)-(5)**

BIW agrees that the employer should perform an assessment of a vessel's
steam system before hooking up a steam supply to ensure that the
vessel's system will not be over-pressurized. We also agree that
paragraphs 1 through 5 of this section apply only if providing steam to
a vessel's steam system. However, BIW feels that the last sentence in
section (a) may be inappropriately interpreted.

"The employer shall ensure that [each steam supply system]{.underline}
meets the following:"

BIW recommends that OSHA consider the following wording.

"The employer shall ensure that each steam supply system, ***connected
to a vessel's steam system**,* meets the following:"

This will add clarity to the applicability of this section because it
should not be applicable to "each steam supply system" as it is written,
but rather only to those supply systems that are providing steam to a
vessel's piping system.

**1915.83(b)(4)**

Paragraph B4 requires that steam hoses passing through walking or
working areas be shielded. Several thousand feet of steam hoses are run
throughout the vessel to operate steam heaters and provide heat for lube
oil systems being flushed. Installing shielding (shielding is undefined)
for the entire hose run is not practical nor is it good practice. When
the hoses are not allowed to breathe they tend to become brittle.
Covering the full length of a steam hose would be detrimental to the
hose.

The routing of the steam hose to prevent incidental contact is just as
effective as shielding. OSHA should consider revising the language to
require the shielding only where contact is likely. This would permit
shipyards to utilize the routing as a burn prevention method. BIW has
also recognized that the metal couplings/unions on steam hoses are a
much more serious burn hazard to employees and recommends that OSHA
includes a requirement to shield the metal fittings/couplings on steam
hoses. Currently, it only addresses the hose or piping. Typical
temperatures of these metal fittings are 200-210 degrees versus the
outside of the rubber hose, which is typically 130-150 degrees.

**1915.84(b) Work in Confined or Isolated Spaces**

BIW agrees with OSHA's new requirement to account for employees, who
have worked in confined or isolated spaces, at the end of the work
shift. Supervisors should ensure that all employees are accounted for,
not just those working in isolated spaces. This is easily accomplished
via an end-of-shift crew muster.

In response to OSHA's request for comments, BIW respectfully submits the
following:

-   Should this section be limited to employees working alone in either
    an isolated space or confined space? *BIW believes that only those
    employees working alone in an isolated or confined space need be
    addressed in this section.*

-   Should OSHA address the hazards in Subpart B? *Although Subpart B is
    a more logical section of 1915 to address confined space hazards,
    these requirements apply to more than confined spaces. These
    requirements have been known to reside in the General Working
    Conditions section for many years and BIW sees no issues with
    continuing this practice.*

-   What is your process for checking employees working alone? *BIW
    utilizes a variety of communication methods depending on the
    specific assignment: verbal communication by the supervisor or
    another assigned mechanic, radio communications, or a tapping signal
    system when two mechanics are working on opposite sides of a
    bulkhead, deck or overhead, when appropriate. All three are
    effective.*

-   How do you account for them at the end of the shift? *BIW musters
    all employees at the end of the shift with their supervisors to
    ensure all employees are accounted for.*

-   Should OSHA require a system or some form of signal (picture at
    entrance) to indicate when a single employee enters a confined
    space? *BIW does not believe this will be effective. Supervisors
    should know when their employees enter a confined space and make
    arrangements for frequent checks to be performed. These arrangements
    must be made prior to the entry taking place for them to be
    effective. In a large shipyard, there are many areas that are
    isolated. For instance: A vessel section may be in storage in an
    isolated location. If a minor task needs to be performed on that
    vessel section and the task is performed by a single employee, there
    will be no one to see the flag or signal, as no one else is on the
    vessel section. The flag serves no purpose and does not increase the
    level of safety for the employee.*

**1915.87 Medical Service and First Aid**

**1915.87(c)(1)**

BIW uses a combination of internal and external first aid providers. We
have an in house ambulance staffed by EMTs, supported by staff Doctors
and Nurses who work at our full-service Medical Clinic. The in-house
ambulance has less than a 3-minute response time throughout the facility
and will transport and treat patients en route to either our Medical
Clinic or to a local hospital. This service is available on first and
second shift where the bulk of the production work occurs.

On third shift there are a minimal number of employees. Third shift
employees consist of boiler operators, pipe patrol, security, and
cleaners/janitors. These employees are spread throughout the facility.
Training one or more of these individuals in first aid and CPR does not
guarantee that those employees can respond any faster than the City
ambulance, as our facility is very large. BIW utilizes the City's
ambulance which also has a 3-5 minute response time for off-shift
medical support and support at our off-site locations.

BIW has not had problems utilizing the City's ambulance as our first aid
providers on off-shifts or off-site locations, however, the proposed
standard does not permit this type of system. OSHA is requiring that
"employees" be qualified to render first aid and CPR. The City's
ambulance personnel are not employees.

BIW requests that OSHA permits continued use of external first aid
providers that can respond quickly, rather than to mandate that first
aid be provided by employees. The bottom line is that employees should
be provided the best and quickest medical attention that a shipyard can
provide. BIW believes that our current process accomplishes that goal.

**1915.87(d)(1)**

BIW has an in-house ambulance staffed by EMTs, supported by staff
Doctors and Nurses who work at our full-service Medical Clinic. The
ambulance has less than a 3-minute response time throughout the facility
and will transport and treat patients en route to either our Medical
Clinic or to a local hospital. We do not provide first aid kits at each
work location, nor do we promote self-treatment or treatment by another
untrained employee. BIW employees are trained to call or have someone
else call an emergency number which dispatches our ambulance or the
City's ambulance to the work site. The ambulances are staffed by trained
EMTs and are fully equipped and maintained. Treatment is performed by
trained individuals; if needed, the injured employee is transported to
our Medical Clinic or the local hospital where a licensed MD is
available.

At BIW, it is contractual for our employees to report all injuries
regardless of how minor the injury may be. Even the smallest cuts can
become infected if not properly treated. Making it mandatory to have
first aid kits at each work location promotes employees to treat
themselves, or to have untrained individuals provide treatment.

Requiring that first aid kits be placed at each work location does not
provide the flexibility for BIW to continue its superior approach of
providing the best medical care possible to injured employees. BIW also
believes that distributing first aid kits discourages injury reporting
as employees will treat themselves. This self-treatment may create
future medical problems.

BIW requests that OSHA consider adding an exemption to this section if
the shipyard utilizes an in-house ambulance service or has immediate
response by an external ambulance service. The exemption could be
similar to OSHA's statement regarding stretchers on page FR72470 where
"Employers are exempted from this requirement where ambulance services
carry such stretchers."

**1915.87(e)**

OSHA is requiring that a quick drenching facility be located within each
work area where the potential for injury of being splashed by [toxic or
hazardous substances]{.underline} exist. The example used on page
FR72469 states that a quick drench facility must be located in a paint
shop. This is very impractical, as a quick drench facility should be
maintained in a clean state and locating it in a spray area prevents
that. In addition, painting occurs in multiple locations in the shipyard
on a daily basis. Having quick drench facilities at these locations is
not practical and not manageable. These locations include areas that are
exposed to the weather, confined spaces, elevated locations such as
masts, and many areas accessible only by personnel lifts.

Most of the "splashes" of hazardous or toxic substances can be addressed
by the employees washing the material off. Chemicals of more immediate
concern such as corrosives warrant quick drenching facilities. BIW does
not agree with OSHA's expansion of this section to include hazardous
materials.

OSHA has also referenced 1910.151 as the basis for this requirement.
1910.151 applies to injurious corrosive materials, not to paint. In a
letter of interpretation dated 5/5/2004, OSHA responds to a request
about whether a shower is required in the area of a spray
finishing/spray booth operation. The OSHA response is:

**Question:** We are installing a spray booth in our facility for use
with lacquer and contact adhesive. A local building inspector indicated
that we are required to have a shower and eyewash station in the
vicinity of the spray operation. Do OSHA regulations require a shower
and eyewash station, and if so, what are the design and use
specifications for the shower and eyewash station?\
\
**Response:** The OSHA regulations for spray finishing operations using
flammable and combustible materials can be found at 29 CFR 1910.107.
While this standard contains a number of provisions relevant to the
operation that you have described, it does not require an emergency
eyewash or shower in the vicinity of spray finishing operations using
flammable and combustible materials. The OSHA requirements for emergency
eyewashes and showers, found at 29 CFR 1910.151(c), specify that \"where
the eyes or body of any person may be exposed to injurious corrosive
materials, suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the
eyes and body shall be provided within the work area for immediate
emergency use.\" As the standard states, an eyewash and/or safety shower
would be required where an employee\'s eyes or body could be exposed to
**injurious corrosive** materials. If none of the materials used in this
work area are an injurious corrosive (as indicated by the Material
Safety Data Sheet {MSDS} for each product), then an emergency eyewash or
shower would not be required pursuant to 1910.151(c).

It is apparent that OSHA has [greatly expanded]{.underline} the
requirement for quick drench facilities by revising the wording from
"injurious corrosive materials" (1910.151c) to "hazardous materials"
(1915.87) and by further defining what is meant by "work area". Although
BIW recognizes the need for quick drench facilities where employees can
become injured from contact with certain materials, we question OSHA's
required location of these quick drench facilities ("within the shop")
and when they are needed. Hazardous materials are used by every trade in
the shipyard and there is a "possibility" that these materials "could"
injure employees. For example: There are over 100 brush painters spread
throughout the facility on a daily basis. The paint they are using is
considered a hazardous material. If they splash a minor amount of paint
on their skin, does not warrant the need for a quick drench facility?
The proposed wording would require 100 shower facilities just for the
brush painters, even though most of the brush painters may not be
affected by an occasional splash of paint. The previous standard only
applied to corrosives which affect employees in a much more consistent
method and which represent a much greater potential hazard. By
incorporating all hazardous materials into the requirement and by using
wording such as "possibility" and "could", the quick drench requirements
in the standard have been unreasonably expanded.

OSHA has also stated in Table 1 of the Regulatory Analysis that there is
no additional cost to employers. BIW feels that the cost to comply with
the proposed wording would be very substantial because of the greatly
expanded coverage of quick drench facilities.

**1915.87(f)**

BIW commends OSHA on their use performance-based language in this
section by allowing "or equivalents" to basket stretches. Basket
stretchers are old technology and not as reliable as evacuation boxes
which we view as "an equivalent". An evacuation box has adequate room
for medical personnel, medical supplies and an injured employee. It can
be constructed for any expected load and requires minimal maintenance.
BIW stations evacuation boxes at strategic locations throughout our
facility.

BIW also commends OSHA on exempting the stationing of stretchers
throughout the facility if an in-house ambulance service carries such
stretchers. We urge OSHA to expand this exemption to first aid kits as
well.

**1915.88 Sanitation**

**1915.88(h)**

BIW recommends that additional clarification be added to this paragraph
either in the Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule or in the
standard itself. A case can be made that every location in a shipyard
and on a vessel may have hazardous or toxic substances present. We
believe that OSHA intended for this paragraph to address the presence of
hazardous or toxic substances that are at a concentration that may have
the potential to harm employees and to segregate those hazards from
eating and drinking areas.

Taken literally, a closed container of a cleaning compound, on the floor
of a lunch area, prohibits the consumption or storage of food products
in the lunch area.

**1915.89 Control of Hazardous Energy (lockout/tagout)**

**1915.89(a)(2)(iii)**

Note: OSHA should exclude **hot tapping** of "petroleum" products
because 1915.14 requires a Marine Chemist certificate for hot work on
pipelines that contain or have contained flammable or combustible
liquids, and NFPA 306 does not permit the Marine Chemist to authorize
hot tapping except in emergency situations where the vessel is in peril.
If this work cannot be authorized in the Marine environment, why include
it in the proposed standard. BIW feels that the word "petroleum" should
be removed from the explanation of hot tapping to eliminate any
confusion.

**1915.89(e)(3)(ii)(A thru D)**

BIW applauds OSHA's approach at permitting a single individual to
lockout or tagout a hazardous energy source for several employees who
may be working on the system or equipment. In certain circumstances,
utilizing this centralized point of contact to control the hazard is a
very effective method. BIW utilizes a centralized POC to lock or tag
energy sources. History has shown us that this method works well because
the employee (authorized individual) is specially trained and in total
control of the system. All other employees use this authorized person to
secure energy sources and to remove the lockout devices. Involving
additional personnel and multiple locks or tags does not increase
safety, as not all employees are familiar with ship's systems and their
redundancies. The control should be kept to a minimum of personnel who
have the knowledge to safely implement the program. Our Power Test
Electricians and Operating Crew personnel are the systems experts and
are responsible for LO/TO.

In addition, it is not always possible to affix multiple locks or tags
on Navy ship's equipment or systems. A multiple LO/TO rqmt would create
confusion and increase the number of personnel involved in the program,
thereby reducing control.

**1915.95 Definitions**

**Hazardous or Toxic Substances**

This definition contradicts the definition in the Haz Com standard
(1910.1200) for toxic materials. Toxic is based on lethal dose or lethal
concentration. It does not necessarily include all corrosives or
environmental contaminants. The proposed definition does not accurately
define toxic material and having two different definitions will cause
confusion.

**Recommend that the proposed definition of toxic or hazardous substance
be deleted.**

**Hot Tapping**

OSHA should consider revising the definition and delete any mention of
gas or petrochemical distribution systems. The use of the terms "gas"
and petrochemical distribution systems infers that hot tapping can be
performed on flammable gas piping systems. Within the boundary of a
shipyard a Marine Chemist's certificate is required to perform hot work
on combustible or flammable liquid or gas piping systems. Hot tapping is
not an accepted practice in accordance with the current version of NFPA
306, therefore Marine Chemists are not permitted to authorize this hot
work. Publicizing an unaccepted practice will cause confusion.

**Walking or Working Surface**

This definition is much too broad and will include every square foot of
a shipyard.

**Subpart J Amended**

1915.162 Ship's Boilers

1915.163 Ship's Piping Systems

1915.164 Ship's Propulsion Systems

1915.181 Electrical Circuits and Distribution Boards

These four sections should be deleted as the hazards associated are
addressed in the new 1915.89 Control of Hazardous Energy.

Dan Nadeau, C.P.E.

Director, Environmental, Health & Safety