## Local 3 Represents over 37,000 Members

Mostly heavy equipment operators, surveyors,

and maintenance mechanics.

These are the men and women who work on and

near “Off-Road Heavy Equipment” daily.

The Safety and Health of these members is

imperative. Every work ing man and woman has

the right to go home to their families at the end

of the day.

Introduce myself

Over 25 year as a safety and health professional

Last 5 years with Operating Engineers

Currently the Executive Director of the Employee Assistance Program for

Operating Engineers, Local Union 3

Prior Safety Director for Local 3

Previous owner of Common Sense Safety Inc. A occupational safety and

health consulting firm

Lead instructor with OSHA Training Institutes at University of CA San Diego

and have taught at both the University of Washington and University of

Michigan OSHA Education Centers.

Worked for Sandia National Laboratories as both a safety professional and

Fire Protection Specialist

Previous to that worked in explosive safety and was a fire fighter

Currently appointed by Gov. Schrazenagger to the CAL/OSHA Standards Board

Introduce local 3 as per slide

1

###  According to the US Department of Labor, over

500 construction workers have lost lives to

“struck-by” accidents in each year since 1992.

 These accidents have also caused operators to

suffer Post Traumatic St ress Syndrome, and in

many instances, to stop working, or at least

leave the trade.

 Obstruction of the oper ator’s line of sight is

almost always a contributing cause to these

fatalities.

Local 3 looses at lest one member a year to struck by accidents. These fatalities are caused

by visual restrictions, and communication problems

2 While it may be impossible to give operators an

unobstructed line of sight in all directions, heavy

equipment manufacturers are constantly working to

maximize the visibility from the operator’s seat – and we

strongly support their efforts.

 California's off-road rule threatens to take us in the

opposite direction.

 This rule requires fleet owners to install PM filters on

equipment that was not designed to have them, reducing

visibility from the operator’s seat.

 This rule WILL lead to additional fatalities. It is not a

matter of IF it is a matter of WHEN !

Additional blockage of visibility will undo decades of working with equipment

manufactures to increase the visibility of the operators and reduce fatalities.

3 In late 2006 and early 2007 Local 3 sought to meet with

the CARB staff to talk about the worksite hazards that it’s

retrofit requirements would create.

 The staff cancelled the first three meetings and showed

up to the fourth meeting 2 hours late. The staff then

proceeded to tell us that they had already completed the

rule they would propose to the Board, and would not be

making any additional changes to that rule.

 Local 3 had to launch an all out safety campaign just to

get the staff and the Board to acknowledge that their rule

would put construction worker’s at risk of losing their lives.

Meetings cancelled by CARBs staff prevented the safety aspects of these filters from being

taken into consideration in the beginning stages of rule making.

4

###  CARB ultimately agreed that filter

installations should not violate OSHA safety

standards, but refused to make any reference

to visibility, and reserved the right to decide,

for itself, what would be unsafe.

 CARB also insisted that retrofits would

remain a centerpiece of its rule, and

continued to pressure fleet operators to error

on the side of creating a hazard.

5

###  CARB’s approach falls short, and the rule continues

to threaten constructi on workers, because:

 CARB does not have either the expertise or the legal

authority to determine what is and is not hazardous to

construction workers;

 CARB is biased in favor of retrofits, and incapable of

making impartial determinations of whether they are

hazardous;

6

###  While the rule may exempt individual pieces of

equipment from the retro fit requirements , it

continues to count that equipment – including its

horsepower and emissions – toward the fleet

average requirements; and

 The standard for granting or denying a limited

“exemption” for even an individual piece of

equipment has to date, not been established .

7 In August of 2008, Local 3 petitioned the CAL/OSHA

Standards Board (OSHSB) to clarify the CAL/OSHA

standards and specifically address the hazards inherent in

retrofitting off-road equipment with PM filters. This

petition was filed jointly with AGC of California.

 In November of 2008, OSHSB unanimously granted our

petition to move forward toward a new rulemaking.

 CARB opposed our petition, and since the standards

board granted it, CARB has continuously interfered with

the board’s decision-making process, which delayed and

postponed this rule making.

8

###  In October of 2009, Gov ernor Schwarzenegger's

office finally intervened, brin ging a halt to retrofits

that impair visibility and directing CARB to do what it

should have done long ago: undertake a study of the

feasibility of safely installi ng PM filters on the off-road

equipment that the rule covers.

 CARB has yet to report the results of such a study.

Indeed, it has yet to produce any evidence that fleet

owners can safely retro fit their equipment to

anywhere near the extent that the rule contemplates.

9

###  Local 3 remains extremely concerned.

 As noted earlier, CARB has no expertise in

construction safety or health, and it remains biased in

favor of the retrofits that lie at the heart of its off-road

rule.

 The very fact that CARB did not conduct such a

study during the rulemaking process raises

enormous questions about its understanding of

construction work and the safety required in

construction workers.

10

###  Safety has always been and must continue to be a

fundamental part of any discussion as to the technology,

feasibility and/or lead time that the Clean Air Act

requires EPA to consider.

 If California has not provided enough time for

equipment manufacturers and/or others to develop the

technology necessary to SAFELY retrofit the off-road

equipment in the construction industry, then EPA must

deny California’s request for federal approval to

enforce its rule.

 Retrofits must be safe. Ot herwise, they are and should

be unacceptable.

11 The regulated equipment ranges from 25 to more than 1000

horsepower, and it travels at speeds that vary from a few feet per

minute to over 45 miles an hour.

 It is not enough for CARB to study a few pieces of supposedly

“typical” equipment. Such limited research could not begin to

justify broad conclusions about the feasibility of compliance with

the off-road rule.

 Each unique piece of equipment requires an independent review.

 CARB and EPA also have to account for the many different

applications that any one piece of equipment may have – and how

an operator’s requirements for visibility may change from one

application to another

.

12Front loaders work as much in reverse as they do moving forward. Visibility to the rear is

as important as visibility to the front.

From a distance not much different in appearance but from the operators seat you will see

a major change

13Once again this equipment is in reverse as much as it is moving forward.

It is unthinkable to block this visibility and will lead to fatalities.

14Once again a piece of equipment that is in reverse as much as forward. This loss of

visibility will be fatal.

15Filter monitor mounted on top of the instrument panel blocks forward visibility while filters

block side visibility. This installation violates current CA/OSHA and Federal OSHA

standards.

16Filters block access to hydraulic system and are mounted on a service walk way.

Maintenance personnel could trip over these filters and fall over 6 feet to the ground.

These filters can be at temperature of up to 1200 degrees and pose a burn hazard to

maintenance personnel.

17Also notice the hydraulic line running next to the filter. These lines can be at pressures of

over 5000 psi and a pin hole leak can through out a mist of combustible liquid onto a filter

at over 800 and up to 1200 degrees. This installation presents both a fire and visibility

hazard

18Heat and High Pressure

Hydraulic Lines Automotive Grade Parts Used in

Heavy Equipment

Filter located next to numerous hydraulic lines running at up to 5000 psi and a filter at up

to 1200 degrees. A fire waiting to happen.

Automotive grade parts have no place in a commercial equipment environment. Both the

hose and fitting used on this fuel line will not hold up in the off

‐ road environment. This is a

fuel leak in the engine compartment waiting to happen and catch fire.

19Hand Rails Cut Through and

Blocked to Install Filters. Cut Through Structural

Members to Install Wiring

Cutting through steel members to rough wires. This installation was done by the filter

manufactures crew. This shows that they have no understanding of this equipment or this

industry.

The picture on the right also a filter manufacture’s installation cutting through hand rails to

mount the filters. This is an obvious safety hazard to any safety professional but

knowledge lacking by the filter manufactures industry of this equipment and its use.

20 No evidence that it is feasible to SAFELY install PM filters

on off-road construction equipment to the extent that the offroad rule contemplates.

 CARB predicted more than 100,000 retrofits.

 Abundant and undeniable evidence exists that retrofits can

easily pose a grave risk of severe bodily harm and death.

 In addition to the risk that a piece of equipment will strike

a construction worker, retrofits increase the risks of falls and

burns, and may even risk the structural failure of a piece of

equipment.

CARB has not proven that these filters can be feasibly installed. In fact they can not.

Very few retrofits can be done safety.

CARB publicly stated fear that stronger safety rules will “negate their rule” shows they

know this can not be done safety.

21

### Operating Engineers Local Union # 3 urges

EPA to 

## DENY California’s request for federal

authorization to enforce its off-road rule.

This is the only way to protect the men and

women working in Calif ornia’s construction

industry from a new and grave risk of injury

and even death. Not even in the name of

environmental protection should EPA or any

one consider putting the working men and

woman of this nation at such a risk.

These filters cannot be installed and operated on heavy equipment without causing death

and destruction of lives. I do not want this blood on my hands or conscience and I am sure

you do not want it on yours either.

On behalf of the 37,000 members of Operating Engineers local Union #3

I respectfully request you deny CARB’s request for a waiver.

Thank the members for there time and consideration

22