![](media/image1.jpeg){width="2.625in"
height="0.46458333333333335in"}March 18, 2008

OSHA Docket Office

U.S. Department of Labor

Room N-2625

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20210

Subject: Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675

Proposed Rule 29 CFR 1915 Subpart F

To Those Concerned:

Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding-Gulf Coast appreciates this opportunity to
submit comments on the Occupational Health and Safety Administration's
(OSHA) proposed rule covering *General Working Conditions in Shipyard
Employment*, Docket Number OSHA-S049-2006-0675.

Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding-Gulf Coast employs 18,000 persons at five
sites in two states. The two major facilities, Pascagoula Operations and
New Orleans Operations, are the largest private employers in Mississippi
and Louisiana, respectively. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding-Gulf Coast is
an integral component of Northrop Grumman Corporation, a major defense
contractor.

To avert possible confusion, please be aware that another of our
sector's operating wings, Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding-Newport News,
will file separate comments on this matter.

You will find our remarks as follows:

-   1915.82 Lighting
    ..........................................................................................Page
    2

-   1915.87 Medical services and first aid
    .......................................\.........................Page
    3

-   1915.88 Sanitation
    .....................................................................................\...Page
    4

-   1915.89 Control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout)
    ..............................\......\...Pages 5 & 6

-   1915.95
    Definitions...........................................................................\...............Page
    7

Again, Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding-Gulf Coast thanks OSHA for this
forum to express its positions on the prospective standards.

Sincerely,

![](media/image2.wmf){width="1.75in" height="0.40208333333333335in"}

Murv Granderson

Manager, Safety

New Orleans Operations

Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding

**[1915.82 Lighting]{.underline}**

**1915.82(a)(1) General Requirements, Minimum Lighting Intensities
(Table 1):**

Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding-Gulf Coast (NGSB-GC) believes that OSHA's
proposal to adopt rigid minimum lighting intensities as detailed in
"Table 1 to Subpart F" does not adequately take into account the
challenges confronting major shipyards, particularly during new
construction. NGSB-GC's business is building large Navy and Coast Guard
ships that contain hundreds or thousands of compartments. Commonly, a
workforce in excess of a thousand craftspersons will occupy a single
vessel. The dynamic nature of modular construction means that the vessel
is continually expanding and changing shape. As part of this process, we
must reassign and move employees and temporary lighting to accommodate
the construction schedule.

NGSB-GC contends OSHA's proposal that "the employer ...ensure that each
area of the workplace is illuminated to at least the intensities in
Table 1 *[whenever an employee is present]{.underline}*" would prove
unduly exhaustive and overbearing. Moreover, activities such as abrasive
blasting and work in oddly configured spaces would complicate absolute
compliance and unnecessarily deplete temporary lighting inventories.

The current standard, 1915.92(a) requires that "...areas shall be
adequately illuminated." This, or similar phrasing, appears in many
passages throughout the General Industry volume, and NGSB-GC maintains
that it should remain in effect for shipyards. This language enables us
to continue to provide adequate lighting throughout the various ship
construction evolutions by optimizing available resources.

**1915.82(c)(3) Handheld Portable Lights:**

> *The employer shall ensure that only explosion-proof, self-contained
> handheld portable lights are used in areas that are not gas-free, or
> other electric equipment approved by a nationally recognized testing
> laboratory...*

For clarity's sake, Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding-Gulf Coast recommends
that OSHA more closely approximate the wording in existing standard
1915.13(c)(9) by:

-   Inserting the phrase between "or other electric equipment approved
    by a...NRTL" between "portable lights and "are used in areas"
    instead of keeping it at the end of the first sentence. The sentence
    as constructed in the proposal is awkward and confusing.

-   Substituting "areas that are not gas free" with "hazardous locations
    as described in 1915.13(a) until such spaces have been certified as
    'Safe for Workers'." 29 CFR 1915 does not define "gas free," and the
    reference to 1915.13(a) provides the location and source of the
    needed information.

**[1915.87 Medical Services and First Aid]{.underline}**

**1915.87(e) Quick Drenching/Flushing Facilities:**

The proposed rule would mandate that "where there is a possibility that
an employee could be injured if splashed with hazardous or toxic
substances, the employer shall provide facilities for the quick
drenching of the eyes and body...within each work area for immediate
use." OSHA's prospective definition of "Hazardous or Toxic Substances"
as published in 1915.95 is:

1)  *Any substance regulated by subpart Z of part 1915;*

2)  *Any material listed in the U.S. Department of Transportation
    Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 171 through 180);*

3)  *Any atmosphere with an oxygen content of less than 19.5%;*

4)  *Any corrosive substance; or*

5)  *Any environmental contaminant that may expose workers to injury,
    illness or disease.*

Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding-Gulf Coast agrees with OSHA's preamble
statement that substances other than "injurious corrosive materials
\[1910.151(c)\]...can injure or burn the skin or eyes or be absorbed
rapidly through the skin..." As such, NGSB-GC provides emergency
flushing facilities for employees performing cleaning, painting and
stripping operations, as well as other activities that may generate
irritating or sensitizing agents.

However, NGSB-GC believes the proposed definition is exceedingly broad
and offers the employer minimal guidance in providing effective employee
protection against contact/absorption hazards. In fact, most of the
criteria comprising the definition have little or nothing to do with
absorption as a route of entry:

-   Subpart Z, particularly 1010.1000, overwhelmingly targets inhalation
    hazards. Moreover, substance-specific standards already prescribe
    the measures for comprehensive exposure control.

-   49 CFR addresses the gamut of threats, including explosion.

-   Oxygen deficiency is irrelevant for 1915.87(e).

-   "Any environmental contaminant that may expose workers injury
    illness or disease" is so vague and speculative as to provide no
    practical use.

As written, 1915.87(e) would require quick drenching facilities at
virtually every work area since even common commodities, such as copier
cartridges and household-variety cleaners and disinfectants contain
ingredients legally classified as "hazardous."

NGSB-GC respectfully recommends that OSHA specifically target acute
contact/absorption hazards by retaining but expanding upon the
1910.151(c) terminology by adding "irritating and sensitizing" to
"corrosive." Moreover, NGSB-GC requests that the Agency consider the
fact that all potential absorption hazards do not present emergencies
and do not require emergency flushing stations. For instance, some
irritants, such as insulation material fibers, are easily and
effectively removed with simple running water and a wash basin that may
not be "within each work area for immediate emergency use". Also, OSHA
already covers other vital aspects of skin contaminant removal in the
decontamination provisions of several substances within Subpart Z.

**[1915.88 Sanitation]{.underline}**

**1915.88(h) Eating, Drinking and Break Areas:**

This rule declares that "the employer shall ensure that food, beverages
and tobacco products are not consumed or stored in any area where
*hazardous or toxic substances* *[may be present]{.underline}*." For
this proposal, Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding-Gulf Coast echoes much of
its comment on 1915.87(e). The Agency's definition of "Hazardous or
Toxic Substances" is expansive but vague and does nothing to
realistically target illness through the indirect ingestion of materials
in the workplace:

-   Subpart Z, particularly 1010.1000, overwhelmingly targets inhalation
    hazards. Moreover, substance-specific standards already prescribe
    the measures for comprehensive exposure control.

-   49 CFR addresses the gamut of threats, including explosion.

-   Oxygen deficiency is irrelevant for 1915.88(h).

-   "Any environmental contaminant that may expose workers injury
    illness or disease" is so broad, vague and speculative as to provide
    no practical use except to categorically prohibit all food, drink
    and tobacco consumption.

Ingestion is the rarest route of entry for "hazardous or toxic
substances." NGSB-GC, moreover, has no recent memory of an employee
reporting an instance of occupational illness resulting from the
indirect ingestion of a material in the workplace. Yet, as written,
1915.88(h) would effectively ban eating and drinking in shipyards, since
even common commodities, such as copier cartridges and household-variety
cleaners and disinfectants contain ingredients legally classified as
"hazardous." This would be the case even if the "hazardous or toxic
substances" were completely contained and stored according to legal
mandates and manufacturers' specifications.

OSHA has no substance ingestion thresholds and does not explain its
rationale for paragraph (h) in the preamble.

Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding-Gulf Coast, of course, acknowledges the
possibility of employees transferring contaminants from their hands to
oral consumables prior to ingestion. The company also recognizes the
possibility of other ways that toxins can taint food, drink or tobacco.
NGSB-GC, however, believes that OSHA adequately matters of hygiene in
paragraphs (a) and (e) of this section. Northrop Grumman further thinks
that manufacturers' recommendations and focused OSHA standards are the
efficient and effective means to target the subject of toxic substance
control, including its application to ingestion as a route of entry.

Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding-Gulf Coast recognizes its obligation to
ensure that its employees have clean places to eat and drink; however
NGSB-GC also views 1915.88(h) as infeasible and, in fact, internally
unenforceable.

NGSB-GC recommends that OSHA retain the language in current standard
1915.97(c) prohibiting oral consumption in "areas undergoing surface
preparation or preservation."

**[1915.89 Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout)]{.underline}**

**1915.89(b)(5)(ii)(B) Standardized Lockout Devices:**

This rule requires that "lockout and tagout devices shall be
standardized within the facility by at least one of the following
criteria: color, shape or size." Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding-Gulf
Coast agrees with OSHA that the ability to quickly recognize a device
enhances not only employee awareness but also program effectiveness.
Although OSHA included the lockout device standardization provision in
its original lockout/tagout standard, NGSB-GC recommends that the Agency
exclude lockout devices in the proposed rule for two reasons:

-   [Standardizing all lockout devices within a large and functionally
    diverse shipyard is infeasible]{.underline}. As the 1915.95
    definition makes clear, a lockout device encompasses much more than
    a padlock. It may also include blank flanges, bolted slip blinds,
    chains, clasps or any part used to "hold an energy isolating device
    in the safe position..." Manufacturers, of course, produce lockout
    devices -- or equipment incorporated into lockout devices - in the
    gamut of colors, shapes, sizes and materials. The number of energy
    sources -- both landside and shipboard - at NGSB-GC is in the
    thousands, and the variety of isolating devices often compel our
    sites to implement the best available options, regardless of
    appearance.

-   [Standardizing all lockout devices is irrelevant to energy control
    effectiveness.]{.underline} As "a positive means to hold an energy
    isolating device in the safe position and prevent energization or
    startup," NGSB-GC believes that the key attributes of a lockout
    device are that they:

1)  Are "substantial enough to prevent removal without the use of
    excessive force," and

2)  Remain under the "exclusive control" of the authorized employee who
    applied it.

> NGSB-GC views the lockout device standardization requirement as an
> undue impediment to selecting the most effective devices for
> positively controlling hazardous energy.

Since "lockout and tagout devices shall identify the identity of the
employee applying the device" \[1915.89(b)(ii)(D) in the proposed
rule\], virtually all industry lockout/tagout procedures require that
tagout devices be attached to lockout devices when lockout is
implemented to control hazardous energy. Tagout devices offer prominent
alerts and their standardization, durability and attachment requirements
are clearly stated in 1915.89(b).

With this in mind, NGSB-GC recommends that OSHA delete lockout devices
from 1915.89(b)(5)(ii)(B) and add a requirement in 1915.89(b) that
tagout devices be attached to lockout devices when lockout is
implemented to control hazardous energy.

**[1915.89 Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout),
continued]{.underline}**

**General Concern: Coordination of Permanent Vessel's Systems
Lockout/Tagout Operations:**

Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding-Gulf Coast, as do many shipbuilders,
requires that a vessel's lockout/tagout operations be coordinated and
implemented under the direction of designated employees, such as Tests
Department engineers. These persons, in fact, do apply/remove energy
control devices. Further, NGSB-GC employs these coordinators for *all*
permanent vessel systems lockout/tagout operations, not only group
lockout/tagout as covered is 1915.89(e)(3). This, of course, is because
of their thorough knowledge of the localized and extended workings of
all of the intricate ship systems and the details (as well as the
ramifications) of shipboard energy isolation. Most authorized employees,
on the other hand, are craftspersons whose expertise and focus is on the
immediate task at hand.

1915.89(b)(8) states that "lockout or tagout shall only be performed by
the authorized employees who are performing the servicing or
maintenance." OSHA's 1915.95 definition of "Servicing and/or
Maintenance" includes "inspecting" among the activities comprising
servicing and maintenance; however, whether the depth of these
coordinators oversight constitutes inspection may be subject to
interpretation.

NGSB-GC requests that OSHA insert language in 1915.89 that explicitly
acknowledges vessel systems experts/coordinators as authorized
employees.

**[1915.95, Definitions]{.underline}**

**Hazardous or Toxic Substances:**

1915.95 states that a "hazardous or toxic substance" is:

1)  *Any substance regulated by subpart Z of part 1915;*

2)  *Any material listed in the U.S. Department of Transportation
    Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 171 through 180);*

3)  *Any atmosphere with an oxygen content of less than 19.5%;*

4)  *Any corrosive substance; or*

5)  *Any environmental contaminant that may expose workers to injury,
    illness or disease.*

Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding-Gulf Coast agrees with OSHA's inclusion of
criteria one and two in this definition. NGSB-GC, however, views the
remaining criteria as inappropriate.

-   [Any atmosphere with an oxygen content of less than
    19.5%]{.underline}:

> First, NGSB-GC's view is that the purpose of a definition of hazardous
> or toxic substances is to assist in identifying harmful agents with
> the aim of targeting measures to eliminate or control their presence
> in the atmosphere. This passage now says that the tainted atmosphere
> itself is the harmful agent. The criterion embraces an "after the
> fact" approach that is reactive and counterproductive.
>
> Second, this phrase is unnecessary for employee safety and health.
> 1915 Subpart B adequately regulates oxygen content and applies to all
> areas within shipyards.

-   [Any corrosive substance]{.underline}:

> This inclusion is redundant as "corrosive" is presently included in
> the definitions of 1910.1200 Appendix A. OSHA previously references
> this in criterion one, Subpart Z 1915, which, in turn, references
> 1910.1200.

-   [Any environmental contaminant that may expose workers to injury,
    illness or disease]{.underline}:

> NGSB-GC understands 29 CFR does not and likely can never regulate
> every "hazardous or toxic substance." However, instead of providing
> the bases for determining the hazard potential of substances unnamed
> in Subpart Z, the Agency offered a vague catch-all clause. The company
> believes that this criterion is virtually impossible for employers to
> enact and also for OSHA to enforce or defend.
>
> For example, one of Northrop Grumman's shipyards recently received a
> medical report of an employee who incurred an allergic reaction after
> a nearby colleague pealed an orange. This affliction resulted from an
> action that was not work-related. Although NGSB-GC could not
> reasonably anticipate the employee's illness, the orange mist,
> according to the definition, constitutes "any environmental
> contaminant." Frivolous as this instance may seem, it illustrates the
> impracticality of criterion five. 1915.95, of course, does not define
> "environmental contaminant."
>
> 1910.1200(b)(2) advises that the Hazard Communication standard
> "applies to any chemical which is known to be present in the workplace
> in such a manner that employees may be exposed under normal conditions
> of use or in a foreseeable emergency." Criterion five far exceeds this
> reasonable and practical application.

Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding-Gulf Coast respectfully recommends that
OSHA delete criteria three, four and five from its definition of
"hazardous or toxic substances" in 1915.95.