DRAFT

Comments on OSHA's

1915 Subpart F -Proposed Shipyard Rules

for

General Working Conditions

1915.80 to 1915.95

with attending changes proposed for

1910.145, 1910.147 etc.

R. Alan Davis, CSP

Safety & Compliance Manager

American Seafoods Company

2025 1^st^ Ave

Suite 900

Seattle, WA 98121

206-256-2677

By Alan Davis --

Speaking on behalf of American Seafoods Company, the North Pacific
Fishing Vessel Owners Association, and the Puget Sound Shipbuilder's
Association

Ladies and Gentlemen of OSHA and other participants and guests,

My name is Alan Davis and I would like to thank you for the opportunity
to share some of my views and opinions on OSHA's proposed rules
affecting General Working Conditions and Shipyard Employment.

A brief note about my background. I have a Bachelors Degree in
Occupational Safety & Health from North Carolina Agricultural and
Technical State University and 18 years of experience in Occupational
Safety & Health Management in various industries including; Textiles,
Chemical Manufacturing, Higher Education, Healthcare and Commercial
Fishing. In the 9 years I have been involved with commercial fishing I
have sailed multiple times on at least 9 vessels and been involved with
inspections and repairs on approximately 49 vessels. I am a Certified
Safety Professional and a Professional Member of the American Society of
Safety Engineers. I have served the Puget Sound Chapter in a variety of
roles including Chapter President and Regional Board Member. I have
spoken at two International Fishing Industry Safety & Health
Conferences. In 2007 I was honored to be appointed by National Academy
of Sciences to represent the Commercial Fishing Industry on a panel
reviewing 15 years of NIOSH research in Agriculture, Forestry and
Commercial Fishing. I have also served for almost 3 years on the United
States Coast Guard Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Advisory
Committee as the Vice Chairman and as Chair of the Risk Management
Sub-committee.

As the Safety Manager for American Seafoods Company, I am responsible
for the Health and Safety for 11 vessels and the 1000 men and women that
work on them. It has been my distinct pleasure to participate in
improving health and safety in commercial fishing and my hope is that
that these hearings will assist OSHA in better understanding our
industry and our challenges.

American Seafoods is firmly committed to being an industry leader in
Occupational Safety & Health and invests a significant portion of its
time and operational budget in its Occupational Safety & Health program
and we constantly strive to improve on our efforts. We do not fear new
rules nor do we believe we should blindly fight against them. We do
however believe that new rules affecting ship repair and maintenance
need to be drafted with all of the affected parties in mind and
represented.

Upon studying the package of proposed rules titled "General Working
Conditions in Shipyard Employment" it appears to us that those parties
that contributed to the body of work had little understanding and
contact with commercial fishing operations and small shipyards. Instead
it seems that the bulk of the contributions have been made from the
perspective of major shipyards employing thousands of people. With all
due respect, we believe that our greatest challenges in maritime safety
and health are not at major shipbuilding and repair facilities. Instead,
we believe our challenge, and your challenge, is in creating simple,
easy to understand and implement, affordable rules and guidelines that
the average vessel owner and operator can easily understand and
implement.

**On Behalf of American Seafoods Company, NPFVOA and the Puget Sound
Shipbuilders Association**

Statistics and Economics

While we are not driven to scratch at the details of Statistics and
Costs, there are a few points that immediately caught our attention
while reading the Proposed Rules for General Working Conditions in
Shipyard Employment.

1.  Numbers of Fishing Vessel Crew -- We are not sure where OSHA came to
    the conclusion in the preamble that there are 200 plus fishing
    vessels with crew sizes of 110-120 but we can assure you that number
    is much closer to 30 vessels. That said, the preponderance of
    commercial fishing vessels are much smaller with crew sizes under 10
    people, and therefore the preponderance of the repair and
    maintenance work done on these smaller vessels in smaller boatyards
    and repair facilities. Indeed, unless work requires lifting a vessel
    out of the water, most of these vessels are repaired by their owners
    and operators while at a dock.

    a.  While we would not suggest that OSHA target small vessels and
        small vessels operators, it does behoove OSHA to consider their
        needs and challenges when drafting new rules. Will they be able
        to understand them? Will they be able to implement and use them?
        Will they be able to afford them?

2.  Cost of Implementation and Upkeep -- Again, how these estimated
    costs are derived is a mystery to us. Table 7 represents that the
    total annualized costs of full compliance with all portions of this
    proposed package would be \$1,010,778.00 with \$606,927.00 of that
    cost attributed to Lockout Tagout materials, implementation and
    training.

    a.  Having implemented such programs on numerous vessels, I can tell
        you from personal experience that number is low, such programs
        require constant training and the materials necessary for
        conducting lockout and tagout must be constantly replenished. I
        can think of nothing involved in the program that will last 10
        years. We do believe that Lockout/Tagout is worthwhile and
        necessary, but it is not an insignificant cost to implement on
        any scale.

3.  Cost of First Aid, CPR and AED -- if an appropriate AED and
    peripherals cost \$4,500.00 each and as few as 50,000 commercial
    fishing vessels, ships and work boats have to buy them in order to
    have one "readily available" during repair activities, that totals
    \$225,000,000.00 alone. Add to that the trainer cost of \$95.00 per
    person for CPR, First Aid, and AED training, and the cost of \$60.00
    per hour x 8 hours x 100,000 (that is just two people per vessel)
    and you have a training cost of \$48,000,000.00 that must be
    repeated every 2 years according to most certifying bodies. Factor
    in the annual purchase of new electrode pads and the bi annual
    purchase of \$200 batteries and you begin to see costs accrue. Is it
    worthwhile training? Yes, is it worthwhile to have the equipment? I
    believe so. But this one item alone far surpasses OSHA's total
    estimated costs and economic impact for the entire notice of
    proposed rule making.

If the estimates of costs and impacts are off in these areas, what other
areas might be underestimated?

**On Behalf of American Seafoods Company, NPFVOA and Puget Sound Ship
Builders Association**

Sanitation, First Aid, AEDs, CPR & First Aid Training, Basket
Stretchers, Eye Washes and Quick Drenching Facilities

While the intention of the OSHA proposed rules in these categories is
honorable, the wording reflects a lack of understanding of the
operational challenges and realities in ship repair and maintenance,
both in ship repair facilities and onboard vessels. While aircraft
carriers and containers ships are built and hauled out for servicing in
huge shipyards with thousands of employees, many more vessels in the
commercial fishing and workboat category are serviced by the owners and
operators while tied to the dock. All across America thousands of small
boat yards, repair facilities and maintenance technicians are involved
in repair and maintenance activities while it seems they have either
been ignored or misunderstood in the process of drafting these proposed
rules.

First and foremost it should be understood that everyone wants to go
home safely at the end of the day and that, by and large, businesses are
willing to comply with rules and regulations that they can understand
and are practical. One should not draft rules that require people to go
back to the preamble for interpretations and understanding or reference
other rules in other publications. Doing so frustrates people that are
making an honest effort and requires that they run back and forth
through a maze of confusing regulatory prose.

Areas of Concern that we have are:

Sanitation -- 1915.88

-   1915.88(c)(2) The Employer shall clearly mark non- potable water
    supplies and outlets as "not safe for health or personal use"

    -   This is excessively wordy and I fear it would be unclear to
        persons who are not native English speakers. "Do NOT Drink, Do
        NOT Bathe" and/or and appropriate pictogram is a better option.

-   1915.88(d)(2) Sewered toilet facilities. The employer shall provide
    at least....(see Table 2 Subpart F)

    -   For many small and medium vessels this is impossible as many
        moorages do not offer sewer connections and the vessels do not
        have adequate tank capacity to store sewage and waste water
        onboard. Providing "Sewered Toilet Facilities" can at times be
        impossible for larger vessels as well due to systems being shut
        down for service and repair. Frequently these needs are met by
        having portable facilities placed onboard or near the vessel or
        by having access to "Sewered Toilet Facilities" somewhere in the
        moorage area.

-   1915.88(d)(3) Portable Toilet Facilities. **[In Addition
    to]{.underline}** the required number of "Sewered Toilet
    Facilities", the employer **[may also provide]{.underline}**
    portable toilet facilities.

    -   The only reason we can imagine that anyone would ever want to
        supply Portable Toilet Facilities is that there are no "Sewered
        Toilet Facilities" available or that they are not available in
        adequate numbers. With the terms **["IN Addition
        to"]{.underline}** and **["may also provide"]{.underline}**
        included in this section OSHA has placed a greater burden on
        vessel owners and ship repair facilities than is placed on
        organizations conducting concerts, sporting events, political
        speeches, and other large public gatherings. Instead it should
        read something to the effect of ,

        -   ["wherever it is not possible to meet the guidelines for
            "Sewered Toilet Facilities" the employer may provide
            Portable Toilet Facilities in adequate numbers based on the
            service providers guidelines."]{.underline}

-   1915.88(d)(3) Portable Toilet Facilities .... **Adequate venting**
    and, as necessary, **Lighting and heating**.

    -   We are not sure where OSHA did their Portable Toilet Facility
        shopping but a quick call to the largest supplier in Washington
        State revealed the following.

        -   Units with solar powered lighting cost 4.5 times as much as
            the standard model.

        -   There are no heated units available in Washington State

        -   On a personal note, I have never encountered a portable
            toilet facility anywhere in the world that was adequately
            vented. On consultation with a local expert he stated that
            it all comes down to servicing the facility frequently
            enough that the waste material does not exceed the level of
            the water and chemical inside the system. They do not have
            systems with powered ventilation

Medical Services and First Aid -- 1915.87

-   1915.87(a) General Requirement. The employer shall ensure that
    medical services and first aid are **readily accessible**.

    -   What is OSHA's definition of **Medical Services** and R**eadily
        Accessible** going to be? We are all for performance standards
        and having the leeway to accomplish safety goals and objectives
        ourselves, the way this is written makes some feel that should
        an accident occur, an OSHA Inspection Officer will criticize our
        preparations and fine us for not having services to the level
        they think required or as accessible as they feel are
        necessitated by an event that no one anticipated.

        -   Medical Services? Does that mean a person with an 8 hour
            first aid class of a Board Certified Emergency Room
            Physician?

        -   Readily Accessible? In a city with average emergency medical
            response times of under 4 minutes is that adequate?

    -   These are perhaps easy questions to answer for a shipyard with
        10,000 employee and an internal clinic staffed by doctors and
        nurses, but for the guy with a crab boat tied up in a marina the
        answers are not all that clear.

-   1915.87 (c)(1) CPR & First Aid Training ..."Shall ensure that there
    is an **adequate number** of employees at each **work location**
    during each work shift" who are qualified...in CPR and First Aid

    -   Again we are faced with a crisis of definition and it is perhaps
        because there is such a huge amount of variability in the size
        and scope of the Maritime and Ship Repair Industry.

        -   Adequate number?

            -   On a 100-foot vessel with a crew of 12 working on
                maintenance and upgrades is one person with first aid
                and CPR Training enough?

            -   On a 400-foot vessel with 3 regular crew working on a
                project how many CPR & First Aid trained people would
                OSHA expect? And if there were 12 outside technicians
                working on various projects around the vessel?

            -   And imagine this, a company has 100 employees and 10 of
                them have CPR & First Aid Training. How does that
                company assure that with vacations and sick leave and
                offsite assignments and situations that might arise,
                that they have all corners of all areas covered at any
                one point in time?

        -   Work Location? How do we determine this?

            -   If the Chief Engineer of a 90 foot vessel is the
                designated first aid provider then is the entirety of
                that vessel one work location?

            -   If the Chief Engineer of a 900 foot vessel is the
                designated first aid provider then is the entirety of
                that vessel one work location?

    -   This is not that easy an issue to manage and again, our fear is
        that no matter how hard we try, if an accident occurs we will be
        taken to task by someone with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

-   1915.87(c)(2) "Valid First Aid and CPR training"

    -   Maintaining current or "Valid First Aid and CPR training" can be
        a nightmare even for those of us that get recertified as
        professionals annually.

        -   Does "Valid" mean within the expiration date of the last
            training?

        -   Could it also be construed to mean that one must retrain
            everyone as soon as the Red Cross or the Heart Association
            announces a change?

        -   Costs of Training and Maintaining the training -- If a
            company determines that they need 10 people with "Valid
            First Aid and CPR training" and they pay those people an
            average of \$35.00 per hour for the 8 hours of training plus
            \$70.00 per person for the trainer, materials, etc, that
            comes to \$3,500 every other year...at a minimum...

-   AEDs -- A question was raised about AEDs (Automatic External
    Defibulators) and if they should be required and under what
    circumstances they should be required. This is a difficult question
    because there are potential life saving benefits to having AEDs
    available. As a former Firefighter and EMT I am a passionate
    proponent of AEDs and have encouraged people far and wide to
    purchase them, but not all things are as easy to accomplish as they
    are to write in a rule.

    -   Again we come to the issue of "readily available".

        -   Is one AED on a 120 foot vessel enough?

        -   How about on a 400 foot vessel?

        -   Safety and EMS Professionals dream of having AEDs mounted
            all over the place, an arms reach from any and every
            location, but we are not there yet. The costs and the
            logistics of managing them are still too high to enable
            complete saturation. While prices have come down in recent
            years, I would advocate caution in purchasing an AED that
            isn't rated for a harsh maritime environment. The initial
            cost of \$2,500 isn't the end of the issue either. The
            electrode pads have to be replaced annually and most require
            battery replacement every other year. Owning and maintaining
            10 or 20 of them can add up quickly.

        -   AND if you are purchasing one for a vessel that is ever more
            than a few minutes from an ambulance, you have an additional
            concern that a successful recovery depends on being able to
            inject various cardiac support drugs quickly. The cost of
            these drugs, the training necessary to use them, and the
            responsibility associated with them pose a significant step
            for many vessel owners and operators.

    -   At this point we would encourage OSHA to not regulatory require
        AEDs but to recommend and suggest that they be considered.

-   1915.87(e) Quick Drenching and Flushing Facilities. Where there is
    the possibility that an employee could be injured if splashed with
    HAZARDOUS or TOXIC substances, the employer shall provide facilities
    for quick drenching or flushing the eyes and body. ...located within
    each work area...

    -   For some reason OSHA has chosen to expand its requirements in
        this area from CORROSIVE to all HAZARDOUS or TOXIC substances.
        This could radically expand the number of places drenching and
        flushing facilities would be needed, and on ships this is
        already a huge challenge as it stands.

        -   By their very nature, ships do no have an unlimited access
            to fresh, potable water. Consequently, ships are not plumbed
            with fresh potable water in every space throughout the
            vessel and in those areas that do have a pipe running
            through them, the pressure and volume is very unlikely to
            meet the needs of ANSI Z358.1-2004 systems.

        -   Portable systems can be very bulky and difficult to maintain
            in a ships environment

    -   We would ask that OSHA stick with the language used in
        1910.151(c) to avoid an unmanageable and unachievable expansion
        of the areas requiring Flushing and Drenching facilities..

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   1915.87(f) Basket Stretchers. The employer shall ensure there are an
    adequate number of basket stretchers, or the equivalent, readily
    accessible where work is being performed onboard a vessel or vessel
    section.

    -   There are a number of questions that arise from this proposed
        standard that seem to loose sight of some of the common sense
        provisions in 1915.98(d)

        -   How do you define "Adequate number" because assuredly you
            could take 5 OSHA Inspectors and 5 Vessel Owners and
            operators and get 10 different answers.

        -   "Where work is being performed onboard a vessel or vessel
            section"? Work is performed constantly onboard every vessel
            and in every section so a literal interpretation of this
            statement leaves us with the need to purchase a basket
            stretcher for every space.

        -   "Equivalent" -- for vessels large and small the SKED and an
            Oregon Spine splint would be far more compact and practical
            than a basket stretcher, and this combination is used by
            military and civilian rescue teams the world over. Would
            OSHA consider that system to be equivalent?

        -   1915.98(d) says "available for each vessel" and "no more
            than two required for each location" perhaps this is more
            reasonable wording.

        -   1915.98(d) also recognizes the futility of this requirement
            in any area served by an emergency medical response system.
            OSHA can rest assured that any Fire Service, Emergency
            Medical Service, Rescue Team, or Coast Guard Responders are
            going to refuse to use any basket stretcher or its
            equivalent, that they encounter onboard a vessel or in a
            shipyard. In addition, anyone within the jurisdiction of a
            Fire or Emergency Medical Service with any standards of
            professionalism would be heartily discouraged by such
            services from attempting to move a patient except under the
            most dire of circumstances. In short, the PROs don't want us
            to use them, so more than one or two per vessel is a
            complete waste of resources.

**On Behalf of American Seafoods Company, NPFVOA and Puget Sound
Shipbuilder's Association**

Following are a few comments on a variety of areas within the proposed
standard.

-   1915.82(c) Handheld Portable Lights. (1) In any dark areas that does
    not have...

    -   Please just call it a Flash Light. I read this twice before I
        realized OSHA wasn't referring to drop lights and other systems
        powered by ship's electricity.

-   1915.86(b) Lifeboats. The Employer shall not permit any employee to
    be in a lifeboat while it is being hoisted.

    -   When lifeboats are being used in drills that are required
        regularly by US Coast Guard regulations and International
        Maritime Organization standards of practice, it is necessary for
        people to be in the lifeboat while it is being raised and
        lowered.

    -   In addition, lifeboats and motor lifeboats require periodic
        maintenance and service that necessitate lowering them into the
        water, exercising or testing the equipment and then hoisting
        them back into their normal storage positions. This is commonly
        done while in a bay or location protected from the weather but
        to require the technician, engineer, or deckhand to board and
        exit the life boat while it is in the water exposes them to a
        far greater risk of falling into the water or being injured in
        some other fashion.

    -   Instead this section should perhaps be reworded to state:
        "1915.86(b) Lifeboats. The Employer shall not permit any
        employee to be in a lifeboat while it is being hoisted unless
        doing so has been determined to be the safest method for the
        employee or crewmember to reboard the vessel. It is also
        understood that it may be necessary for crew members to be
        inside a lifeboat during its deployment and return to the vessel
        for the purpose of emergency drills."

**Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout)**

-   1915.89 Control of Hazardous Energy

    -   I have a long history of championing the guiding principles of
        Hazardous Energy Control and I like to think I have had some
        small part to play on the principles being as wide spread in the
        North Pacific fishing fleet as they are today. As others have or
        will be speaking on this issue today I will not take up a great
        deal of time on a line by line analysis but I do feel strongly
        that there are several fundamental assumptions in the proposal
        that are in error and need to be addressed.

1.  Commercial Fishing does not need two separate hazardous energy
    control regulations and procedures. We need one well thought out and
    up to date system in which everyone in Maritime can be trained and
    which leads us all to the ultimate goal of preventing injuries and
    fatalities. The idea of having one program for "Factory Spaces" and
    a different program for "ship's systems" is fundamentally flawed.

    -   There is a fundamental assumption within OSHA that the ship's
        systems and the factory processing equipment are completely
        segregated and so are the engineers and technicians that are
        responsible for their maintenance and repair. I can testify that
        is an erroneous assumption. Commercial Fishing Vessels are the
        very epitome of a "Lean Organization" and the smaller the
        vessel, the leaner the organization. On even the largest of
        factory trawlers and processing ships, you will find engineering
        staff helping the factory technicians with issues and you will
        find factory technicians helping with engineering issues. You
        will also find Deck, Bridge and even Office Staff pitching in to
        resolve mechanical crisis of all kinds. Examples:

        -   Sump Pump in Factory Fails -- is this a Ship's System
            Problem? Is it a Factory Problem? It is a problem for both
            and the solution involved an engineer, an oiler, a factory
            technician and a safety manager swinging a hammer.

        -   Plate Freezer Foundation Break -- Is this a Ship's System
            Issue or a Factory Issue? Again, it is everyone's issue
            because the equipment is connected to the deck and to the
            refrigeration plant. The Solution involved the Chief
            Engineer, a Deck hand, a Factory Technician and the safety
            manager from the office.

        -   A leak in a through hull fitting? This is obviously a Ship's
            Systems problem right? But the solution involved the Chief
            Engineer, First engineer, the Oiler, three technicians from
            the factory, a Bosun, and a Deckhand.

        -   Electrical Problem? Computer Problem? PLC Problem? Generator
            Problem? One Electrician covers it all.

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    -   You see, not only are the Ship's Systems and the Factory's
        production equipment all integrated, but the Ship's Crew is
        fully integrated from top to bottom as well. Essentially, we are
        one organism with each part completely interdependent with the
        other. We cannot operate smoothly with two separate rules and
        systems for hazardous energy control. It would cause too much
        confusion and unnecessary cross training.

-   1910.147 is NOT the latest and Greatest. The foundations for
    1910.147 were written in the 70's and 80's and there are numerous
    suggestions that it can be improved upon. OSHA should step away from
    trying to stuff Maritime in 1910.147 and instead take an in-depth
    look at the 2004 NSRP "Review of Current and Best Practices for
    Energy Control (Tagout) in Shipyards" and the ANSI/ASSE Z244.1-2003.
    Please redraft 1915.89 with these more current products as a guide
    and do not continue to divide a commercial fishing vessel with some
    imaginary line.

-   1910.147 We have a concern that the collateral impact of years of
    Letters of Interpretation of 1910.147 could have numerous unforeseen
    issues for Maritime and commercial fishing if OSHA continues to
    pursue the path of dividing a ship and placing the Processing
    portion under 1910.147 will that automatically mean that almost 20
    years of judgments and rulings will be enforced in facilities that
    were never even considered or contemplated when they were
    implemented?

-   Let's make a clean and simple rule for all of Maritime that
    incorporates the lessons learned from almost 20 years of Lockout
    Tagout implementation and utilize the input and expertise available
    from the full breadth of the maritime industry, of which Commercial
    Fishing is a significant part.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to thank you both for your efforts to
help make the maritime industry and its employees safer and for allowing
me the time to provide input and insights from a variety of areas that
you may not have had the opportunity to consider earlier in the process.
I understand that this is an arduous process for you and I can only hope
that our comments have helped in some way. Unless you have any questions
for me at this time, I would like to step aside and allow others to
contribute to this process.

R. Alan Davis, CSP

Safety & Compliance Manager

American Seafoods Company

2025 1^st^ Ave

Suite 900

Seattle, WA 98121

206-256-2677