Document ID: OSHA-2010-0001-0079
Agency: osha
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2010-11-12T05:00Z

OSHA GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON SHIPBREAKING

OSHA 3375-03

2010

DISCUSSION OF COMMENTS OUTLINED IN POLLY PARKS EMAIL 

DATED 4/23/10

Submitted 7\14\2010

Overview: 

During the previous charter of MACOSH the Shipbreaking guidance document
was submitted for review to the full committee. At that time MACOSH
recommended to OSHA that the document be published. After undergoing an
internal OSHA review the document was released approximately two years
after MACOSH approval. After release to the general public an email
notice was sent to the agency by Ms. Polly Parks representing Southern
Recycling EMR USA. This email dated 4/23/10 outlined several alleged
errors and omissions contained in the document and requested that OSHA
withdraw the document. During the MACOSH meeting in May of 2010 the
agency requested the MACOSH Shipbuilding Committee review Ms. Parks
comments and to provide the agency with a opinion on her comments. In
the discussion below the committee examines each of the statements from
Ms. Parks and provides a discussion with an overall conclusion at the
end.   

Statement: 

The fatality statistics on the Industrial Fatality Statistics chart on
page 20 give the false impression that the Number of Fatal Injuries and
Illnesses Reported in Ship Breaking Operations is based' upon data
specific to the ship recycling industry. In fact, the information is
derived from NAICS Code 48833 which is Navigational Services to Shipping
and Salvage. While ship dismantling establishments are included in this
NAICS code, 86% of the establishments are associated with tugboat,
towing, and piloting services. 

The url: http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/da!a/industry/E48833.HTM,
has a drill down of product lines for this NAICS code. Product line
44160 is marine salvaging, marine wrecking, and dismantling of ships and
represents 5.1% of the total sales of the NAICS code; there is no
breakout exclusively of the ship dismantling sector. In 2002, the entire
product line 44160 comprised only 38 of the 776 establishments
identified for the entire NAICS code, or less than 5%. In addition, in
an attempt to discover where the statistics cited in the page 20 chart
emanate from, the Bureau of Labor Statistics Fatal Occupational Injuries
by Industry, event or exposure, for the NAICS code 48833 do not match
the breakouts in the chart. This misrepresentation of statistics is a
disservice to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, OSHA, and the domestic
ship recycling industry.

Discussion: 

The agency has removed this chart from the publication. The MACOSH
committee believes that if the chart is replaced it should contain
information specific to ship breaking and have its source documented. 

Statement.

The premise of the publication, that ship recycling is an expanding
industry in the United States is undermined by the policies of the
Working Group Members in the Maritime Administration that have been
diligently reflagging U.S. vessels for scrapping in other countries
without a transparent process by which the U.S.-flagged vessel owners
-whether they reflag or not are notified that they must meet the spirit
and letter of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) PCB export ban. It
is in fact the PCB export ban that makes it illegal to export vessels
that contain PCB's over 50 parts per million, not "criticism due to
concerns over worker safety and health, and adverse environmental
impacts.

Discussion: 

The statement that the ship breaking/recycling industry is being
undermined by Maritime Administration policies is an opinion and any
discussion in the Ship Breaking publication is outside the scope of the
document. The focus of the document is to provide an overview of OSHA
regulations in the ship breaking industry and to ensure the safety of
employees who work in the industry. Any opinions should not be included
in the document. 

The next statement in the paragraph implies that Naval and MARAD vessels
are no longer being sent out of the country due to restrictions in the
Toxic Substances Control Act instead of concern for the health and
safety of workers and environmental issues in foreign countries. 

There may be several reasons why Naval and MARAD	vessels are no longer
being sent out of the country for dismantling. Certainly, criticism from
the public after being presented with media coverage of offshore
dismantling practices is one of them. Enforcement of federal regulations
can certainly be another one. Since the practice ceased in 1997 and no
supporting documentation is provided, the MACOSH committee does not
believe that this is a significant error or omission. If necessary this
could easily be corrected by inserting wording such as: However, in
recent years the exporting of ships from the United States to foreign
countries for scrapping has come under criticism due to concerns over
worker safety and health and adverse environmental impacts along with
enforcement of federal regulations.   

Statement

We question why OSHA has produced a publication that bears little
relationship to how ship recycling in conducted in the United States and
therefore has little relevance for reference or as a work-tool for the
domestic ship recycling industry and its workers. The publication has an
entire section on "Steps in Ship Breaking Process" that is not accurate
as to the regulatory and production steps that domestic ship recyclers
undertake.

Discussion:

The section on Steps in the Shipbreaking Process does not present a
mandatory process to be followed; it suggests a number of issues which
are involved in dismantling a vessel. The section on Steps in the
Shipbreaking Process is a one page summary of some steps in the
recycling of a vessel and is clearly not meant to be an exhaustive study
of all of the regulations, procedures and production practices employed
throughout the industry. Also, different companies may follow different
steps depending on their experience, past practices and facility
limitations. So to infer that this is a mandatory list of steps and
requirements does not appear to be founded. 

Statement: 

There is no regulatory or contractual requirement that a vessel survey
be conducted and, unlike commercial vessels, with the federal ships,
there is generally little if no documentation provided. This is one of
the reasons that federal ship recycling is a high risk endeavor and why
operational experience is so valued.

Discussion: 

The document does not state that a vessel survey must be conducted.
Plans and diagrams may not always be available which would make an
inspection of the vessel valuable in making an estimate of costs. This
certainly appears to be a good practice and would appear to make
economic sense for a facility wishing to scrap a vessel so they can
determine the overall scope of a project.

Statement: 

While a ship recycling facility must have an oil spill response plan and
responders, outside of that instance, or the removal of fuel over water,
there is no USCG requirement that "booms be placed around a vessel to
help contain any spills." The OSHA publication cited has to do with
marine oil spill response and ship recycling is not mentioned.

Discussion: 

A statement in the Shipbreaking document states that spill containment
booms must be placed around all vessels… A review of the regulations
does not indicate that this is a mandatory requirement. The wording
should be revised to indicate that this is not a requirement when a
vessel is moored or docked. There are requirements for this during spill
response. Some companies may also chose to employ booms as an
environmental preventative measure. 

Statement: 

The production processes and sequencing that underlies the section might
be used by some domestic ship recyclers, but not all and this has no
utility for our company practices or workforce education.

Discussion

The document was not published for a specific company nor does it
contain any mandatory processes other than those outlined in OSHA
regulations. The document is also not meant to provide an in-depth
sequence of shipbreaking operations. The document provides general
guidance for the industry. Some sections may apply to certain employers
and other sections may not provide value to companies which use
alternate methods. The scope of the document is to provide a high level
overview of issues and safety regulations involved in shipbreaking. In
the preamble of the document it states it is guidance for workers in
shipbreaking and introduces no new mandatory requirements. 

Statement: 

D) 29 CFR 1915.33(d) specifically states: 

Protection against toxic preservative coatings. 

1915.53(d){1) 

In enclosed spaces, all surfaces covered with toxic preservatives shall
be stripped of all toxic coatings for a distance of at least 4 inches
from the area of heat application or the employees shall be protected by
air line respirators meeting the requirements of 

§ 1915.154. 1915.53(d)(2) In the open air, employees shall be protected
by a filter type respirator in accordance with the requirements of §
1915.154. 

Yet, the section "Prepare surfaces for cutting," states: " .....
coatings must be stripped from surfaces (29 CFR " 1915.53).

Discussion: 

The OSHA regulations do allow alternate methods to removing coatings
during heat application. It is agreed that in this section it may be
appropriate to spell out the regulation showing all options. However, it
was not the intent of the document to provide complete information on
all OSHA requirements. 

Statement: 

The section on Recycle or dispose of materials appears to be geared
toward the secondary market, not the ship recycling firm workforce.

Discussion: 

This paragraph provides a short general statement and may not have any
benefit to       the workforce at the deck plate level. However, it does
not contain any misleading or incorrect information and is not a
detriment to the overall document or to worker safety. 

Statement: 

 The section, "Initial Visit to Vessel to Determine Suitability for
Scrapping," has a picture of the ex-US Navy carrier Forrestal, stating
it is pier-side for shipbreaking. In fact, the vessel is pier side at
Newport, RI for storage, which included some preparatory environmental
remediation for an abortive attempt to reef the vessel in deep waters.
At this writing, the US Navy has still not issued a draft or final RFP
for the recycling of the Forrestal. Further, from an industry and worker
education standpoint, it is not useful to simply iterate a list of
potential hazardous materials. Of more interest, is the protection
through work practices and PPE that the OSHA standards afford the
workforce. In addition, the section on asbestos does not address
sampling (nor does the section on PCB's). Many of the other hazardous
materials, such as cadmium and lead paint, are givens (and require air
sampling) and are addressed through the use of proper workplace
practices and personal protection equipment.            	

Discussion: 

The US Forrestal is currently pierside in Newport, R.I. When the
document was initially written several years ago it may have been the
Navy’s intent to send the vessel for shipbreaking. Circumstances may
have changed about the Navy’s intent for the vessel and may change
again in the future. Currently, there is some minor work being conducted
on the vessel in preparation for moving the vessel. The reason for the
move is not know by the committee but it would appear that there are few
options for the vessel and scrapping or reefing would constitute some of
the main options. The picture and statements do not detract from the
intent of the picture. 

The description of hazardous materials under the heading of Initial
Visit to Determine Suitability for Scrapping identifies several
hazardous materials and conditions which may be found on a vessel
proposed for shipbreaking. In the section on Medical some in depth
regulatory requirements are listed for those chemicals or materials
which medical surveillance is required. Materials or chemicals which do
not require regulatory medical surveillance are not included. 

Several references are included which would provide in depth
requirements on how to handle compounds which in depth regulatory
requirements are not outlined. The problem statement does not does not
maintain that the information is incorrect, only that more information
may be useful in the document. The committee understands that it is
difficult for a publication offering high level information to cover all
aspects of this complex industry so; as a result not every issue is
covered in depth. 

Statement: 

The section on "Towing the Vessel" does not address the Vessel General
Permit required by the EPA. It is our experience that U.S. flagged
vessels in lay-up status have been under the "erroneous impression they
did not have to register the vessels. This task then falls on the ship
recycler.

Discussion: 

There may be a myriad of permits required to tow a vessel for scrapping
and it is possible that the Shipbreaking document may have not included
other necessary permits. It is certainly not possible to determine all
of the permits necessary to tow a vessel in this brief section nor is it
the intent of this guidance document. It may be necessary to include a
disclaimer in the section saying other permits not listed may be
required. The intent of the document is not to provide a detailed list
of required permits. 

Statement: 

The section on "Mooring the Vessel" has the non-regulatory requirement
that a naval architect or marine engineer approve the mooring plan. The
"Heavy Weather Plan" is a MARAD and US Navy contractual" requirement,
not a regulatory requirement. As MARAD discovered with the Monongahela
breakaway from its state-of-the-art hurricane mooring system during a
November 2009 Nor'easter, it is next to impossible to have mooring bits
engineered to withstand forces imparted by all weather conditions. Ship
recycling facilities exist within Ports and are subject to the USCG
Captain of the Port requirements concerning various heavy weather
scenarios as well as industry and best management practices. The
statement in the first paragraph that "It is recommended that ships not
be moved during winds exceeding 25 knots," appears to be a non-sequitur.
The section again makes an affirmative, non-regulatory requirement that
"booms must be placed around all vessels, and personnel should be
trained in the procedures for opening and closing the booms." The
purpose of the regulatory-required oil spill response plan and oil spill
responders is to ensure if there is an oil spill it is properly managed.
Oil booms are not manufactured to be deployed 24/7-365 days a year.

Discussion: 

The document states that vessels that are intended for pier side
scrapping need to be properly secured using approved mooring lines and a
mooring plan reviewed by a qualified professional, such as a naval
architect or marine engineer. 

This does not appear to be a regulatory requirement and it is
recommended that the word need be changed to should. 

The statement that ships not be moved in winds exceeding 25 knots could
be considered a grammatical non-sequitur but does not detract from the
document. 

See discussion with Statement 5 on the issue of requiring the deployment
of oil response booms. 

Statement 12:

The section on "Hauling the Vessel," appears to mix hauling a vessel
into drydock for recycling (an uneconomical practice no longer in active
use domestically) with a discussion of winching (hauling machines?). It
is impossible to tell and this section needs industry input to make it
relevant. We would also question the practice of using all-terrain
forklifts or bulldozers to pull a vessel ashore.

Discussion: 

The section on Hauling the Vessel attempts to cover many situations and
facility types where shipbreaking may occur. While this section may not
cover all issues and practices, that is not the intent of the document.
This section contains no errors or misleading statements.  

Statement 13:

The section on "Planning" includes a number of non-regulatory
requirements and the use of professional personnel (naval architect or
marine engineer) that do not bring any value added to the specific task
of dismantling a vessel or ensuring that the workforce is properly
trained to do their specific tasks. Apparently the defunct ship
recycling division of Metro Machine went to the trouble of having module
cut plans. This was because they cut large sections of the vessel and
barged the pieces to a separate facility for remediation. This
exponentially decreased their efficiency and increased their labor and
material costs while providing no extra value in terms of compliance
with U.S. environmental or occupational safety law and was likely a
factor that led to their going out of the ship recycling business. While
it is important that all facilities have a comprehensive safety and
training plan, it is a regulatory requirement to have a fire and
emergency response plan, MSDS sheets, and provide basic training. An
environmental technical plan is not a regulatory requirement. While the
Maritime Administration and the U.S. Navy require Environmental Plans in
their solicitations, the plan is to ensure that the company and the COTR
understand what the regulatory requirements are. The proposed IMO
convention will also require a form of environmental plan by the ship
recycling facility, as well as a more relevant listing and location of
known hazardous materials by the ship owner. However, similar to the
publication's suggestion of adding a naval architect or marine engineer
to the ship recycling planning mix, in the United States this is simply
make-work for consulting firms and not a task that would provide any
more environmental or safety value to the U.S. regulatory regime, or
operational value to the firm. What is required in order to do ship
recycling in a regulatory compliant fashion is to know, before one
starts ship recycling, what the regulations are and how to meet them.
After that, it is a matter or staying informed on regulatory changes and
striving to institute company best management practices that exceed the
regulatory requirements and improve worker safety and health or the
environment.

Discussion: 

Throughout the section on Planning the work should is used. This
indicates a non-mandatory or suggested requirement. No facility is
required to follow these steps. These steps were obtained through
discussions with industry members during the writing of the document
which is now several years old. However, there are many sound ideas
contained in the section which any company may consider during the
shipbreaking process. 

Statement 14:

The section "breaking the vessel" uses language that describes a
practice done only on the beaches outside of the reach of U.S.
environmental or occupational safety compliance. In the United States,
we recycle vessels and, while recognizing the OSHA statutes say
shipbreaking, in industry-directed publications, it is time that OSHA
used the terminology of the 21st century. Similarly, we do not use a
"drill and drain" phase in the United States, though perhaps this was
the language used by Metro Machine which had no prior ship dismantlement
experience. The removal of hazardous material is segregated by
pre-dismantlement and dismantlement integrated tasks.

Discussion: 

The current OSHA regulations use the term shipbreaking. The term
shipbreaking is being replaced with the term ship recycling by the IMO
and in many organizational documents throughout the country. The OSHA
regulations still use the term shipbreaking and since this document is
an OSHA publication it is correct to title it as such. In order for the
agency to change the terminology it would have to reopen the entire 1915
section and modify the term is several areas.  This action is up to
OSHA. 

Drill and drain is explained in the article. While it may not be used in
one yard it may be used in others. It is also not a mandatory practice
but was in use when the document was crafted.  

Conclusion: 

The MACOSH committee was requested to review the Shipbreaking document
in direct response to the issues outlined in Ms. Polly Parks email of
4/23/10. Specifically, the committee was asked to determine if the
alleged errors in the document were so great that it would make the
document dangerous to use and provide misinformation to the industry.
The review of specific sections is contained above. 

The MACOSH Shipbuilding workgroup has determined that when the document
is examined line by line there are areas where minor changes and
corrections can enhance the document, these changes are minor in scope
and will not endanger any user of the current document. Any company
engaged in shipbreaking should only use the document as a general
guidance resource and should follow up and examine any issues in detail
by consulting the OSHA standards. In general the publication contains
useful information and it is not recommended that the full document be
withdrawn. 

  

Submitted by MACOSH on July 14, 2010.