Document ID: OSHA-2015-0014-0043
Agency: osha
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2015-11-10T05:00Z

Maritime Advisory Committee for

Occupational Safety and Health (MACOSH)

Meeting

9:06 a.m. to 3:48 p.m.

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

University of South Florida

Marshall Student Center

4103 USF Cedar Circle, Room 3709

Tampa, Florida  33620

A P P E A R A N C E S

MACOSH COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

JAMES R. THORNTON, Chairman

KENNETH SMITH, U.S. Coast Guard

JAMES RONES, Safety Compliance Officer/Supervisor

CHELSEA WOODWARD, Commercial Fishing Safety Research and Design Program

LESLEY JOHNSON, Safety Committee Chairman 

TIMOTHY PODUE, Chair, Coastal Safety Committee

ROBERT GODINEZ, International Brotherhood of Boilmakers

KELLY GARBER, Environmental Manager

DONALAD RAFFO, Marine Chemist

SOLOMON EGBE, Health Safety & Environmental Director

AMY SLY LIU, Sound Testing, Inc.

DANIEL HARRISON, American Society of Safety Engineers

SPECIAL AGENCY LIASON

ANTONIO RIOS, Department of Labor Special Agency Liaison for MACOSH

OSHA STAFF

JENNIFER LEVIN, Committee Counsel

AMY WANGDAHL, Designated Federal Official

CHRISTOPHER SHAW, Travel and Administration Support

DANIELLE WATSON, OSHA Support, Shipyard Workgroup

VANESSA HOLLOWAY, OSHA Support, Longshoring Workgroup

NICHOLAS CARR, OHSA Support

C O N T E N T S

									  PAGE

BILL PERRY								   22

KURT PETERMEYER                               51

LES GROVE	                                 96

MATT PAULI                                   119

KEN SMITH                                    154

KELLY GARBER                                 202

DON RAFFO                                    225

AMY WANGDAHL                                 239

E X H I B I T S

                                            PAGE

EXHIBIT 3 (Power Point presented by           50

	Bill Perry)

EXHIBIT 4 (Power Point presentation by        94

	Kurt Petermeyer)

EXHIBIT 5 (Power Point presentation by        110

	Les Grove)

EXHIBIT 6 (Power Point presented by           136

	Matt Pauli)

EXHIBIT 7 (Power Point presented by           201

	Ken Smith)

EXHIBIT 8 (Power Point presented by           225

	Kelly Garber)

EXHIBIT 9 (Power Point presented by           239

	Don Raffo)

EXHIBIT 10 (Power Point presented by          245

	Amy Wangdahl)

P R O C E E D I N G S

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  It is September the 2nd and we are here
with the MACOSH Committee.  We are at the University of South Florida,
the Marshall Student Center, here in Tampa.  Before we move into the
regular agenda the first thing I want to do is remind or tell everybody
about the emergency exits.  So the stairs are right here immediately to
my left.  Okay.  We will take the stairs down and we will exit out the
main entranceway that we came in and assemble where the buses left us
all down in that area right there.  Okay.  Everybody got that?  If you
can’t remember those just try to keep up with me and you will be fine.
 

	All right.  So let me proceed with the role call here.  And what we are
going to do –- I am going to call the role of the committee.

	Ashleigh, what we do is we have the public identify themselves.  We
usually have them file by.  Is your mic here on the table able to pick
them up if they file by the table?

COURT REPORTER:  Yes.   

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  

COURT REPORTER:  And I just need everyone, the public to spell their
names for me.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  And spell their names.  Okay.  So what we are going
to do after I call the role of the committee –- all right.

We are going to start over here on the left.  You have the job of
setting the bar for everybody and I don’t want you to mess this up. 
Okay.  So I would like your name -– what was that?  Okay.  Your name,
affiliation, and spell your name so that Ashleigh can get it on the
record.  Okay.  All right.  Very good.  So let’s proceed. How are we
doing, okay?

MS. LEVY:  We are fine.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.

I’m going to call the role of the committee.

Ken Smith.

MR. SMITH:  Present.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  James Rone.

MR. RONE:  Here.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Chelsea Woodward.

MR. WOODWARD:  Here.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Kristine Gilson.  

(No audible response)

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Not present.

George Lynch.

(No audible response)

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Lesley Johnson.

MR. JOHNSON:  Present. 

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Tim Podue.

MR. PODUE:  Present.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Robert Godinez.

MR. GODINEZ:  Here.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Kelly Garber.

MR. GARBER:  Here. 

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Don Raffo.

MR. RAFFO:  Here.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Solomon Egbe.

MR. EGBE:  Present.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Karen Conrad.

(No audible reponse)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I’m James Thornton and I am here.

		Amy Sly, and you added your last name.  We used to know you as Amy Sly
or is it Amy Sly Liu?

	MS. LIU:  Liu is the new last name but I think I’m still under Sly on
the official paperwork.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  What do you like?  We will give you –- we will
give you anything you want.

	MS. SLY:  Either is fine.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  Very good.  Amy Sly.

	MS. SLY:  And I am here.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Dan Harrison.

	MR. HARRISON:  Here.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  And our Special Agency Liaison, Antonio Rios.

	MR. RIOS:  Here.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Very good.  All right.

		OSHA staff here we have our DFO Amy Wangdahl you are here, right?

	MS. WANGDAHL:  I’m here.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  And our committee counsel, Jennifer Levin,
you are here, right?

	MS. LEVIN:  Yes.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  Let’s see -– I would also like to
recognize some of the folks that are not here but they are staff –-
some are here and some are not.  

	Danielle Watson, who is on assignment to another –- what do you call
it, detail?  

	MS. LEVIN:  Correct.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  Not able to be here but I wanted to
recognize Danielle for her support of the Shipyard Work Group.

	And Vanessa Holloway, is Vanessa –- I know she is here.

	MS. HOLLOWAY:  Here.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Way back there in the room, Vanessa provides
support to the Longshoring Work Group.

		And Nick Carr is running around here somewhere but, Nick, thank you
for your work there.

		And Chris Shaw is the travel and support person that works with you on
your reservations and that kind of stuff so he is not able to be with
us.  

		Did I miss anyone?  Okay.  Very good.

		All right.  So here we go.  So I’m going to start over here on the
left and let’s see how this works, Ashleigh.  So if you will kind of
file by the table there and introduce yourself, your affiliation and
spell your last name for Ashleigh, please.

	MR. COLLINS:  My name is Woody Collins, W-o-o-d-y, C-o-l-l-i-n-s.  I
work with the American Equity Underwriters who is the administrator for
the Alma mutual fund.

	MR. WODERING:  Stephen Wodering, S-t-e-p-h-e-n, W-o-d-e-r-i-n-g.  I’m
with Shipbuilders Council of America.

	MR. CASKEY:  My name is Chuck Caskey, C-h-u-c-k, C-a-s-k-e-y.  I’m
what’s called an end user of all of this information.  I’m a safety
director for Standard Concrete Products out of Tampa, Florida.

	MR. PODUE:  Good morning everybody, I’m Mike Podue, P-o-d-u-e.  I am
with the International and Longshore Warehouse Union in Southern
California, L.A., Long Beach ports.  Good morning.

	MR. GEORGE LUJANIOWU:  George Lujaniowu, L-u-j-a-n-i-o-w-u.

	MR. GILLIAM:  Fred Gilliam, G-i-double L-i-a-m with the International
Longshore and Warehouse Union.

	MR. TURNER:  Dave Turner, T-u-r-n-e-r, with ATM Terminals, safety
director.  Also representing PMA and NMSA, National Maritime Safety
Association.

	MR. SWANSON:  Good morning, Jerry Swanson, S-w-a-n-s-o-n.  Pacific
Maritime Association, San Francisco.

	MS. FOLSE:  Dorinda , D-o-r-i-n-d-a, F-o-l-s-e.  And I am the Ocean
Region 6 Rep.

	MR. SCHULTZ:  Tony Schultz, S-c-h-u-l-t-z.  I am with Southern
Recycling, EMR in New Orleans.

	MR. GREEN:  Chris Green, C-h-r-i-s, G-r-e-e-n.  I am with EMR in
Brownsville, Texas.

	MR. MCGOWAN:  My name is John McGowan and I am with Naval Sea Systems
Command, or NAVSEA. 

		I’m a shipyard conductor of operations.  And is McGowan is spelled
M-c- capital G-o-w-a-n and I use all four letters for John.

	MR. SULLIVAN:  Good morning, I am Kevin Sullivan, Ocean Region 2 Rep,
S-u-l-l-i-v-a-n.

	MR. ALLEN:  Good morning.  I am Ron Allen and I am with Signal
Administration Managers for Signal Mutual Indemnity Association.  And
that’s A-l-l-e-n.

	MR. PAULI:  Good morning.  I’m Matt Pauli, P-a-u-l-i.  I’m a
Compliance Officer with the U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Anchorage
area office.

	MR. CASPER:  I’m John Casper, C-a-s-p-e-r.  I’m a Compliance
Officer from Portland, Oregon permanently for OSHA.

	MR. KETCHAM:  Good morning.  Scott Ketchum, Area Director from the
Anchorage area office of the Department of Labor.  K-e-t-c-h-a-m.

	MR. CARR:  Nicholas Carr, C-a-r-r from OSHA National Office, Office of
Maritime and Agg.

	MR. MCLAUGHLIN:  Dennis McLaughlin, OSHA Region 5 representative.

	MR. CARLE:  Thomas Carle, Assistant Regional Administrator, Region 3
OSHA Philadelphia. 

	MR. BUTLER:  Steve Butler, B-u-t-l-e-r.  OSHA Maritime.

	MS. NISHIMURA:  Katie Nishimura, N-i-s-h-i-m-u-r-a.  OSHA Region 1 Rep.

	MR. OMOHUNDRO:  Larry Omohundro, it’s O-m-o-h-u-n-d-r-o. 
Representing OSHA Region 7.

	MR. BENAVENTE:  Good morning.  Ray Benavente, B-e-n-a-v-e-n-t-e.  IWO,
International Warehouse Union, Los Angeles, Long Beach.

	MR. GROVE:  Les Grove, G-r-o-v-e.  I’m the Area Director in OSHA’s
Tampa area office.

	MR. VOS:  John Vos, V-o-s.  Region 4 OSHA Representative. 

	MR. PETERMEYER:  Kurt Petermeyer, K-u-r-t. P-e-t-e-r-m-e-y-e-r.  I’m
the Regional Administrator for Region 4 OSHA.

	MR. COMOLLI:  Paul Comolli, C-o-m-o-l-l-i.  OSHA Maritime Employee,
Tampa Office.

	MR. ROMEO:  Jack Romeo, R-o-m-e-o.  Area Director of Honolulu, Hawaii
representing Region 9.

	MR. FARRIS:  Good morning.  Ed Farris, IOW Local 10 Vice President out
of San Francisco.  

	MR. WHITMAN:  Ryan Whitman, R-y-a-n, W-h-i-t-m-a-n, IOW.

	MS. ASHMAN:  Keila Ashman, K-e-i-l-a, A-s-h-m-a-n.  USF OTI Education
Center, Assistant Director.

	MS. BUIE:  Emily, E-m-i-l-y, B-u-i-e.  I’m with the USF’s OTI
Education Center.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you very much.  I don't know if this is --
it's a little better, right?

(Chorus of "Yes" and "Sure.")

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  How about check yours, Bill, just, please.

(Microphones tested.)

MR. PERRY:  It seems to be working.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I guess you have to be very close.  So we are going
to try it so.

Okay.  So a couple of items.  Is there anyone that didn't identify
themselves?

(No audible response.) 

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  Very good.

So, there is a sign-up sheet over on the credenza over there.  So, for
the public, if you haven't signed in, please do that so we'll have a
record of your attendance.  I appreciate that.

I didn't recognize Bill Perry, but I'll introduce him in just a second. 
But I wanted to do a couple of housekeeping things.

So, let's everybody pull your minutes out, please.  These have been --
these are in your packets.  These are the minutes of Wednesday, February
25th, at the DOL buildings.  I'd like you to pull those out, please.

(Pause.) 

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  These have been sent out in advance so
you've had a chance to look at them.  So, procedurally, I'll ask for a
motion for approval of the minutes.

Les Johnson.

MR. JOHNSON:  Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve these minutes as
written.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

Do I have a second?

PARTICIPANT:  Second.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I've got a second.  Okay.  Discussion, correction,
additions, deletions from the committee on the minutes?

(No audible response.) 

MR. SMITH:  I have one minor editorial.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Go right ahead.

MR. SMITH:  On the very first page, or page 2 on your opening remarks,
roll call.  "So the following discussion can be found in the on" -- I
recommend striking "in the" and leaving the word "on pages R through
23."

(Pause.) 

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  And you recommend striking "in the"?

MR. SMITH:  Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.

Has everybody found that change?

All right.  So, I'm hearing assention from the committee on the change,
and we'll -- I guess we'll ask for the motion as amended.

Are there other changes?

(No audible response.) 

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  So I'll call for the question.

All in favor of the minutes of Wednesday, February 25th, 2015, as
amended by Mr. Smith, please signify by saying Aye.

(Chorus of "Aye.")

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Any opposed, like sign?

(No audible response.)

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you very much.  Let's put that away.

All right.  The next thing I want to do is I want to run through the
agenda really quickly so everybody knows where we're going here.  So we
don't do some administrative matters.  We've reviewed the minutes of the
meeting.

We're pleased to have Bill Perry here.  I'm going to recognize him here
in a second to give an update on standards and guidance activities.

Kurt Petermeyer is here from the region 4.  He's going to tell us about
what's happening in maritime in the region 4 activity and region 4 area.

Followed by that, we're going to have a break about that time.  And
following the break, Les Grove here is area director.  He's going to
give us what's happening in region 4 in the local Tampa area office.

Matthew Pauli, industrial hygienist all the way from Anchorage is here. 
He is here, right?

MR. PAULI:  I'm here.

(Laughter.) 

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Got you.  Thank you.

We're going to talk about a field report of stacked gas exposures in
region 10.  Then we'll take lunch about -- we'll see how it goes, but
it's scheduled for twelve o'clock, and we'll adjust that as needed.

Following that, Steve Butler, who's Director of the OSHA Office of
Maritime Enforcement, will give us an update from the Maritime Steering
Committee.  They had a long meeting yesterday, and I'm anxious to hear
what came out of that.  And Steve will fill us in on there.

And finally, one of our own, Ken Smith, with the Coast Guard, is going
to talk about the international maritime organization and update on
maritime issues.  So, thank you for that, Ken, in advance.

Then we'll take an afternoon break somewhere around two o'clock.  And
following that, we'll have our workgroup reports.

Yesterday, the two workgroups worked extensively.  I sat in on the
shipbuilding workgroup for some time, and I know the Longshoring
workgroup put in overtime.  And I understand that, thanks to the
slave-driver here, Mr. Garber, so I know they have a lot of stuff to
report on.  So, looking forward to their reports.

And then finally, I'll do a little recap on the charter and some
administrative matters there.  And then finally, we always have sort of
an open-mic kind of time at the end of the meeting.  This is sort of our
-- this is our last meeting under this, quote, "membership," not our
last meeting under this charter, and we'll clarify all of that.

So, we will talk about some closing remarks and, you know, next steps,
and that sort of thing.  So we'll close that meeting up at that time.

So, that's the agenda we've laid out.  So, we can adjust it as necessary
as we go along. But I just wanted to go over that with you.  And then
we'll follow that format.  All the speakers are here.  It sounds like we
won't have to juggle some things and that sort of thing.

So, thank you, public, for your participation.  And we've got good, soft
chairs this time, so it should make it a little easier for you.

So, with no further ado, Bill Perry is here, the Director of OSHA's
Directorate of Standards and Guidance.  And he is going to tell us about
what's happening in the Standards and Guidance Directorate and an
update.

So we're going to see how the mic works, okay.  And in the back row, if
you can't hear -- I know Bill's back is to you -- just raise your hand,
and we'll make some kind of adjustment.  So, with that, Bill, you have
the floor.

MR. PERRY:  Okay.  Very good.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I certainly
appreciate being here today.  And good morning to all of you.  It's good
to see you all again.

First, I just wanted to thank the University of South Florida for
hosting us and the OSHA OTI Ed Center, USF, for arranging for this very
nice facility and thank them for their hospitality and their assistance
with these meetings.  It's been really, really helpful to have them
involved in this for us.

So, also thanks to Amy and her staff for pulling off yet another
logistic challenge, getting our MACOSH workgroups productive, having
good meetings yesterday.  I understand there will be a number of new
items that will be brought to the committee for recommendations to move
forward.  So we're very glad about that.

So, with that, I think what I want to do today, of course, I'll walk
through some of our major projects and initiatives that we've been doing
here in DSG.  It's been a very busy year, will continue to be a busy
year up through into 2016 for us.  We have a lot of irons in the fire,
so to speak.  And I'll just walk through some of the things I think will
be of particular interest to the committee.

Of course, we have this little rulemaking going on now dealing with
crystal and silica.  There isn't a lot I can say about it.  You know, we
had proposed this now almost two years ago.  We had the record open for
public comment, testimony at hearings, and post-hearing comment, a total
of about 11 months.  It's one of the longest public comment periods the
Agency has had in its rulemaking history.

Got a couple of thousand very substantive comments.  This is a
technically complex standard.  So we're very busy right now digesting
everything that's been said and all the evidence and data that's been
brought into the record in trying to figure out, you know, what things
we need to adjust and issue a final standard at some point.  We do not
have a projected date for that action as yet.

Another final rule is in the works.  This is our fall protection
standard for general industry, basically revision of subpart D in 1910
and introducing a new subpart I for 1910, dealing with personal fall
protective equipment.  So we published this proposal, now it's been a
few years back, in 2010.

We have drafted a final standard.  And it is currently under review by
the Office of Management and Budget.  That is a requirement of Executive
Order -- what used to be 12286.  I can never remember its current
number.  But basically, they're looking at all the economics, economic
analysis and requirements of the rule and making sure that we've done
everything that that executive order requires.

So, hopefully, it will be a matter of a few months rather than much
longer than that that we'll be able to get that rule cleared and
published.

Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Keep going.

MR. PERRY:  Okay.  I'll keep going.

A few weeks ago, we did publish a proposed rule governing occupational
exposure to beryllium and beryllium compounds.  It was published on
August 7th.  The comment period is currently open through November 5th.

Pretty typical health standard -- we proposed lowering our current
permissible exposure limit of 2 microgram-per-cubic-meter as a TWA to
0.2 microgram-per-cubic-meter, putting in an action level of 0.1
microgram-per-cubic-meter and then making it the same kinds of other
requirements you see in OSHA health standards, requirements for medical
surveillance, exposure, assessment, worker training, housekeeping, and
industrial hygiene, facilities, and practices.

So, what was interesting about this is we did not propose applying the
standard to shipyards.  Primarily, this is operations involving abrasive
blasting, is the only exposure, potential exposure to beryllium that we
are aware of that could occur in shipyards.

And we have received a few questions about that, about why we did not
include shipyards in the scope of the rule, likewise we did not include
construction in the scope of the rule.  The proposal does offer
regulatory alternatives to include shipyard workers in the scope of that
rule, or at least whether we should consider just applying the new PEL
to shipyards or maybe some, maybe certain provisions that are in the
proposed rule make sense in the context of abrasive blasting operations
in shipyards.

So we have received a few questions from the public about that.  We make
it clear that we seriously consider regulatory alternatives.  They're in
the notice of proposed rulemaking for a reason, because we want to hear
from people about what makes sense here.

So I would encourage your organizations that are represented on this
committee and out in the audience behind me to think about that and
please comment on the record and tell us what makes sense to make sure
abrasive blasters and their tenders and helpers are adequately protected
from exposure to beryllium.

I had mentioned, of course, we have the final rule on fall protection in
the works for general industry.  We are also working on a request for
information for shipyard fall protection, scaffolds, ladders, and other
working conditions.  We are currently working with our office of the
solicitor on that request for information.

And as soon as we can come to an understanding there on the content and
structure of the RFI, then we'll be looking to publish that.  Hopefully,
it will, again, be a matter of a few months, not like a year or more
out.

The existing subpart E requirements -- of course, although they're not
comprehensive, they do not cover certain technologies that have been
developed, particularly in scaffolding area, since OSHA adopted that
rule.  So we're looking to update requirements to reflect those advances
in technology, to reflect industry practice, and also to consolidate
requirements into a single subpart.

And basically, too, we wanted to harmonize, to the extent we can,
between all of our fall protection standards.  To a large extent, the
general industry fall protection rule that we now have at OMB, one of
the goals was to harmonize as much as we can with the construction rule,
because there are employers out there that engage in both general
industry and construction activities, and they should be adhering to the
same requirements there.

We are looking at dividing the rulemaking into three subparts -- subpart
E for stairways, ladders, other access and egress; subpart M for fall
protection; and subpart N for scaffolds.  And we'll be asking for
comment on that when that RFI comes out.

(Pause.) 

MR. PERRY:  The last thing specifically in the area of maritime,
particularly maritime in agriculture is, I'd like to announce a
rebranding of all of our products.  You see them on the slide.  We have
some examples.  Back on the table here, basically, this is a new design,
much more eye-catching, we think easier to read.  It's just the general
layout, the font design, et cetera, I think will just make the
information more accessible than compared to the format and style of the
OSHA fact sheets that you all have been used to seeing now for quite
some time.

So we're quite excited about this rebranding of our maritime products,
and again we're doing the same on the agricultural side, as well.

A couple of other initiatives that I think would be of interest to this
committee, we of course, are developing revised or updated guidelines
for safety and health management systems.  OSHA has had since 1989
guidelines for safety and health programs that the Agency had published.

And we are updating those 1989 guidelines to develop a document that we
think will be much more user-friendly.  It is really targeted to small-
and medium-sized businesses.  It is much more a how-to-implement a
safety and health management system.  We think, in terms of layout of
this document will be much more accessible to that audience and will
walk them through the process of implementing a safety and health
management system that's appropriate for the size and nature of their
operations.

So, we're really quite excited about this product.  We will be
developing various tools to assist employers and workers who will be
involved in implementing those programs, to set them up, to do
self-evaluations and self-assessments, and keep that theme of continuous
improvement going, once they have a system in place.

We will be releasing a draft document for public comment.  I don't have
an exact date yet, but it's going to be this fall.  We are pushing very
hard to get the document out for public comment in the fall.  We'll have
a comment period.  We may follow that up with stakeholder meetings. 
We'll see what the nature of the comments are that come in, and then go
ahead and get that document finalized in the early part of 2016.

And then, from that point on, we'll be continuously developing
additional tools and aids to help employers implement these safety and
health management systems. 

So we think this is a really important and needed initiative.  The '89
guidelines have been around a long time.  And it's really time to start
pushing to encourage employers to implement these kinds of systems.

Another rulemaking initiative that is just underway that may be of
interest to this committee is our initiative on emergency response and
preparedness.  For that, we have put together a working group of
emergency response experts under our National Advisory Committee for
Occupational Safety and Health, NACOSH.

The first meeting of that working group is next week, I think, on
September -- it's Wednesday.  Is that September 8th or 9th?  Eighth,
okay.  It's Wednesday next week.

(Laughter.) 

MR. PERRY:  And so -- thank you.  The 9th.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Three out of the three think it's the 9th.

MR. PERRY:  We are asking that work group to help us craft a proposed
rule governing emergency response and preparedness with an emphasis on
the preparedness part.  We don't really intend to get real involved in
the actual response part.

But the issue is, what do emergency response organizations need to have?
 What kind of training, what kind of equipment?  And what are their
needs to enable them to respond to the kinds of incidents they expect
are likely or could happen in the communities that they serve?

Last summer, we had a couple of stakeholder meetings with firefighter
organizations, firefighter unions, state plans, voluntary fire
organizations, EMT organizations, and other emergency response
representatives, as well as representatives from the construction
industry, who are periodically called on to assist in emergency response
actions.

And really, all the participants were very supportive of a comprehensive
standard that covers this.  As you know, OSHA has emergency response and
preparedness requirements peppered throughout several standards.  You
know, we have HAZWOPER or we have the prior brigade standard.  We have
our emergency response standard. 

And there are provisions kind of scattered around in other places.  We
really just wanted to pull those together and consolidate them into one
place and address some areas that are not currently addressed in OSHA's
standards to ensure the protection of our emergency response workers.

We expect the work group will work from 12 to 18 months.  And we hope at
the end of that to get a recommendation through our NACOSH committee on
the standard that OSHA would then propose.

MR. PERRY:  Okay.

(Pause.) 

MR. PERRY:  Is that better?  Better?

(Cross-talk.)

MR. PERRY:  It's hard on my back, but I can manage.

(Laughter.) 

MR. PERRY:  Now, just an update on something that Jim had already
mentioned.  As you know, we have renewed the charter for this committee
for two years this past April.  So we're good through April of 2017.  On
the charter side, the nominations are -- as Jim said, this is the last
meeting of this particular membership, because the current membership
expires in January and we're not going to be able to have another full
committee meeting between now and then.

So, we will have at least some turnover on the MACOSH committee, come
January 2016 when we start the whole of the next seven meetings for that
year.

I really just wanted to recognize the contribution of this membership to
the Agency's mission.  You will see in this slide here, for the last two
years, all of the work that has come out of the committee and that has
been published by OSHA.  The workers have been very active, over 30
calls in two years.

Now, you know, you all have day jobs; we understand that.  So this is
extra time that you all have put in to attend these meetings and to
attend the work group calls and the work group meetings like we had
yesterday -- it really is an astounding level of production, and it is
our most productive advisory committee at the Agency.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Would you repeat that, please?

(Laughter.) 

MR. PERRY:  That it's the most productive advisory committee of the
Agency.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Yes.  Thank you very much.

(Laughter.) 

MR. PERRY:  Do you think twice is enough?

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  You could do it one more time.

(Laughter.) 

MR. PERRY:  I say that most sincerely.  I mean, it really is helpful. 
And as Jim says, very often it's making a difference out there.  I
think, you know, with you all being the experts to guide us, and knowing
what goes on in your establishments and what the workers need.  You know
what information is needed out there to make sure that shipyard and
longshoring workers are protected from safety and health hazards.

So, again I know mainly it's -– we greatly appreciate your hard work. 
I know Dr. Michaels appreciates your hard work.  And thank you for your
service.  We appreciate it.

So, I think, Mr. Chairman, that's about what I have to report out.  And,
unless you think I forgot something important, that's pretty much what's
going on in DSG at this point.  And I'll be glad to take any questions
from any the members.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Sure.  Wow.  And there was light.

(Laughter.) 

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  Thank you, Bill, very much.  And thank
you, by the way, for those kind remarks, because I know the committee
and those public participants do contribute extensively.  So, I
appreciate those remarks.  And we do take pride in really supporting the
Agency and advising the Agency on these matters.

And we are making a difference out there, and I think the numbers show
it.  So, thank you very much.

Let's take questions or comments from the committee, please.  So, if
you've got a question, just raise your hand.  We'll try for
at-your-chair and see how the acoustics work, or I'll pass you the mic. 
We're going to experiment a little bit.  So if you've got a question,
please raise your hand.

Tim.  Try and let's see how the acoustics work.

MR. PODUE:  It was brought up in some previous conference calls and also
in the work group yesterday about facts -- I mean, quick cards.  And I
don't know if this is the right time to be bringing this up.  And so,
it's our understanding the Agency is going to move away from them pretty
soon, quick cards.

And fact sheets and guidance documents will still be produced.  And some
language is going to be changed.  Which we understand.  We feel that's a
great thing.  We know the onus is on the employer to provide us a safe
working environment.

But with all my time I spent on this committee, working within this
committee, we put out the quick cards, which have kind of directed our
work.  And it's worker-friendly.

Now, we have, you know, federal, state, and local regulations when it
comes to working.  And our rank-and-filers, if you give somebody the
book to read, it's not really worker-friendly.  So the rank-and-filers
try to interpret and understand what the books actually mean.

So our work through this committee, putting out quick cards, like I
said, the targeted group is the worker.  It was something that the
worker can take to put in his back pocket and know what he -- you know,
what his rights are based there, where the work is to be informed.

So, maybe I got a misunderstanding of the reasons for discontinuing the
quick cards.  But I feel that's going to be a great loss for us as
workers, you know, and people I represent, the workers in the nation. 
So I just -- maybe you can explain that, the reasoning why that's going
to happen.

MR. PERRY:  Well, I appreciate your comments.  Actually, Tim because I
think it's the Agency that wanted to move into some just very different
formats.  I think there's still a place for coming up with the concept
thing, which you were putting as quick cards that was sort of the same
purpose.

We really do.  If you look at what the Agency's been producing over the
last year or so, you'll find all kinds of different forms and formats
out there.  We are -- for many years, we were pretty much restricted to
doing the quick cards, the fact sheets, and then the larger documents. 
That is what the Agency produced.

We really just wanted to branch out and try some other forms and formats
to see if we can get, you know, more effective communication.

Now, I happen to agree with your point of view.  I think we have, over
the last year or so, especially, gotten away from the products that
speak directly to the workforce.  And I think maybe we need to rethink
that a little bit and say, "Well, what kind of form might work?  Kind of
pocket-sized pack of information, you know, would be helpful here?"

But it's not to say we'll go back to quick cards, but I think that there
may be some kind of format or product that we could work with our
communications office on to get back into developing those kinds of
products.  Because, you know, I agree with you.  I think maybe we
shouldn't have moved away from quick cards the way we have.  And we
didn't have anything substituting it right behind.

I know our office is really interested in producing information that's
going to be utility to workers, as well.  So I actually appreciate your
comments, and I will look into it.

MR. PODUE:  Yeah, I know the format is still going to be there, in
essence.  Thank you for reminding of that.

But again, everything is targeted to that employer.  I just want to say
again everything is targeted to the employer.  And we all understand
that, and we appreciate it, the group.

But, you know, we fought for years here, my tenure here sitting on the
committee, in bringing home something to give to the workers to show the
people.  It really makes a difference to the people, that the workers
that I represent really appreciate that the seed that they, you know,
were working and getting something directly for the people on the job. 
And it makes a difference.

So any other type of format that possibly in the future workgroups and
future MACOSH's, maybe they can get something out that he can actually
take home.  The Agency sends us cases of the quick cards that we've
developed and wherever -- you know, circulated within the membership. 
So it's a good thing. I feel it’s going to be a loss.

And it kind of turned our work group upside-down a bit on a way where
were actually developing some of our products.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Well, I guess just what I heard there is, you know,
something -- the experience has shown something put directly to the
worker has value out there, whether it's a quick card or whether it
becomes some other -- some other vehicle, for lack of a better term.

But I thought I heard the Agency's open to discussion and development of
something that goes direct.  I think one value of the quick card and
some of the products, many of the products we put out, is that we can
get them through pretty quickly.  You know, quick cards are just that. 
They're quick cards.

And so, kind of to piggyback on Tim's comment, they're making something
that we can discuss in subcommittee and maybe come up in larger
committee and see if we can come up with something that is equally of
value.

Other questions?  Committee?

(No audible response.) 

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  Now let me ask.  This is the way I do
this.  So I'm going to allow some limited questions by the public,
because we're running a little short of time.  But if you have a
question and you're in the public, could you raise your hand so I get a
sense of how many people might have questions of Bill?

(Pause.) 

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  One.  Yes, sir.

Anybody else?

All right.  Could you come on up, please, sir, and sit?  Bill, could you
make that chair available and let the gentleman introduce himself and
ask his question, please?

MR. PERRY:  Sure.

MR. McGOWAN:  My name is Jack McGowan, NAVSEA.  And I just wanted to
understand the comment you made earlier on the beryllium standard,
having it only apply to general industry.  Because as part of a ship
repair, we do quite a bit of abrasive blasting and from what I heard --
there was a time your microphone was off, so I couldn't hear you very
well.

MR. PERRY:  Oh.  Okay. 

MR. McGOWEN:  But it sounded like you just wanted to apply that to
general industry, and I don’t understand that.

MR. PERRY:  The proposed rule was written to apply to general industry. 
But in the notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register Notice,
we present a number of regulatory alternatives that the Agency is
considering.  And one of those would be to apply either all or part of
that proposed rule to the shipyard employers and their workers.

Now, that could be just a change in the permissible exposure limit, or
it could be a change in the exposure limit, along with maybe some of the
provisions that make sense for that particular operation and
environment.  Or some people might think even higher standards should
apply in that case.

And that's where we want to hear from people to figure out what makes
the most sense.  And the reason why we did it that way is, in looking at
it and looking at what exposure information we have, it didn't seem to
us necessary to apply the entire rule to abrasive blasting operations. 
Okay?

But maybe it makes sense to apply some part of it or at least beat the
revised exposure limit.  So rather than propose some different rule
explicitly, we kept those in as regulatory alternatives.  So, that opens
the door for the Agency to apply the rule in some fashion to
shipbuilding when it issues a final action after we've heard from all
the public comment and got all of the record in and are considering it.

So that door is open.  And we really would like to know what makes sense
here, you know, what's reasonable and protective.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Sure.

MR. McGOWAN:  Can I ask a follow-up question?

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Absolutely.  Let me just -- Ashleigh, are you okay? 
This is all good?  All right.  I just want to make sure we're getting
it.

MR. McGOWAN:  I’m just trying to understand that the -- it would be
hard, in my view, anyway, it would be hard to explain to the shipyard
worker why we're going to make the standard after the level was 0.2.

MR. PERRY:  Point two, right.

MR. McGOWAN:  From a 2.0, right?  If my understanding is -- it's
ten-fold reduction.

MR. PERRY:  Um-hm.

MR. McGOWAN:  So how do you explain to a shipyard worker why we're going
to reduce that level to general industry and we're not looking at doing
that in the shipyard?

MR. PERRY:  Um-hm.  I think what you can explain to workers today is
that the Agency has created a path in its proposal for doing something
in shipyards.  We just want to hear from people what was reasonable
about -- in that sense.  We really had very limited information on
exposures and current practices in those environments, and the same for,
as I said, in the construction industry, too.

So, we are considering it.  You know, it's not that there isn't an
avenue where we can include shipyards in the final rule.  We have
created Navigant for doing that.

MR. McGOWAN:  Okay.  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  Other questions by the public?  If you have a
question, please raise your hand.

(No audible response.) 

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  Thank you.  Any other questions of the
committee?

(No audible response.) 

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  No go-backs?

(No audible response.) 

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Very good.

Bill, any closing remarks?

MR. PERRY:  No.  Just thank you again for your service and all the great
work.  And I was glad I was able to get out here and see you all for the
last meeting of this membership down here in lovely Tampa.  And again,
we thank you to the University of South Florida and their Ed Center for
helping set it all up.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you very much for making the trek down from
D.C.  I know you're very busy in working on all kinds of things,
including silica and beryllium and everything else.  So, appreciate your
support of the committee.  Thanks for coming down and giving us the
update.

MR. PERRY:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

All right.  Kurt, are you ready?

MR. PETERMEYER:  Yeah.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Oh, I'm so sorry.  We've got to do one
administrative thing.  Come on up, Kurt.  Come on up.  Come on up.

(Pause.) 

MR. PETERMEYER:  If I may, computer to -- 

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Yeah.  Somebody help Kurt over there, will you?

MS. LEVIN:  At this time, I'd like to move into the record the
PowerPoint presented by Bill Perry as Exhibit 3 to the docket, OSHA 2015
0014.

(OSHA 2015 0014 Exhibit 3 was accepted into the record.)

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  We're good to go.  When we get Kurt
queued up, we'll go right into Kurt's presentation.  Following that,
we'll have a short break.  So hang with us one second while we get
queued up.

(Pause.) 

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  And Amy reminded me, as we approach lunch, before we
go to lunch, we're going to bring Nick up and talk about some of the
logistics for tomorrow, because I know a lot of people are asking about,
"Where do I go?  What do I do?" all that kind of stuff. 

So, Nick, get ready.  So not right now, but we'll give you some of the
details for tomorrow.  Okay?

Okay.  Are you good, Kurt?

MR. PETERMEYER:  Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  Very good.

So, this is Kurt Petermeyer.  He's the RA for Region 4.  And he's a very
busy man, too.  And we're so happy he came down to join us.

And I don't know if you want to say anything in the way of introduction
for yourself or you want to plow right into it.  But the floor is yours.

MR. PETERMEYER:  I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished
members of the board.  I greatly appreciate the opportunity to be here
today.  As most of you probably know and understand, I have never been a
participant in MACOSH, so I must say I was quite excited and honored to
be here to present to ya'll.

A little background of me.  I became -- I was appointed the Regional
Administrator for the Southeast Region 4 in May of 2014.  So I guess I'm
still a rooky on the street, if you will.  But with the turnover in the
organization, I seem to find myself now in the middle of the pack as far
as seniority.

(Laughter.) 

MR. PETERMEYER:  But things have changed.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Congratulations.

MR. PETERMEYER:  I appreciate that.

But again, I've been in region 4 now for over a year-and-a-half.  I've
moved around the country over the years, and really I was in region 4
for 15 years before I left.  So it was kind of like coming home.  So
again, so I'm very happy to be here and be present with all of you.

All right.  Many of you may have the perspective of what the region 4 is
composed of, our activities, operations, but especially members of the
public may not.  We have responsibility, I have responsibility over
eight states.  So, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida,
Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Mississippi.

As many of you probably know, four of those states are state-planned
programs, meaning we have oversight.  With maritime operations, we have
jurisdiction.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Which are the four?  I'm just curious.

MR. PETERMEYER:  Yes, sir.  North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
and Kentucky.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

MR. PETERMEYER:  Within region 4, I have approximately 260 employees. 
We have -- I have two deputy regional administrators that handle
operations.  And it is split in two.  We have three -- I have three
assistant regional administrators that report to one deputy, and one
enforcement deputy regional administrator that reports to me on the
other side of the fence, if you will.

We have 12 offices.  Three of them are state monitoring offices, with
one in Nashville, Tennessee, which has responsibility over the States of
Kentucky and Tennessee.  And I also have an office in Raleigh, North
Carolina, for that state, and in Columbia, South Carolina.  And again,
we have nine federal offices in Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and
Mississippi, which are our federal states.

Our primary areas of responsibility -- in many cases, you know, we're
dubbed to be the enforcement-oriented agency, and we definitely have
those responsibilities and take those very seriously.  But we do have a
litany of other responsibilities to go along with that.  Whistleblower
protection is one.  We currently have 22 statutes that we enforce.

Compliance systems and training, our recognition programs, both VPP and
oversight of SHARP.  Our state programs of consultation, and also Susan
Harwood grants.  And of course, these responsibilities, of course,
include all of our maritime operations.  And since we are a coastal
region, we have a litany of these activities.

So, first from -- to coin the term, from "mom and pop" shipbuilding and
repair operations to large ship repair operations with hundreds of
workers, we of course cover all of them.  Longshoring operations, a
point on that -- we have a hotbed of longshoremen, in particular our
Savannah office has responsibility of the ports there.  And it has
become the third-largest, third-busiest port in the United States, which
many don't realize that. 

And I made a point here.  Behind LA and New York, and LA, not lower
Alabama, for any of you that may be from Alabama, including Mr.
Chairman.  Marine terminals, naval bases, of course, we have a number of
those, including the facility, of course, in Brunswick, or Saint Mary's,
I should say, Saint Mary.

Cruise ships, both in Florida and South Carolina.  Barge construction,
heavy activity there, in Tennessee in particular.  And along with our
loading and unloading operations, as well.  Shipbuilding predominantly
in Mississippi and Alabama.  And we know that in region 4 we have had a
number of unusual maritime incidents, as well.  And there's a couple I
want to cover now.

The picture there is really irrelevant, just kind of demonstrates some
of the unusual activities -- 

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I would guess alcohol was involved in that -- 

(Cross-talk.)

MR. PETERMEYER:  I couldn’t comment on that, Mr. Chairman.

(Laughter.) 

MR. PETERMEYER:  But in 2013, we had a barge explosion.  This involved a
natural gas event, where they were purging the barge.  And also in 2013,
which you'll see at a later date with some of our statistical
information, it was quite a busy year, sadly, for fatal events.

And this event included, we also had a cruise ship that actually broke
away from its lashings during a storm and killed an employee.  And that
was in Alabama on the coast.  The ship actually drifted across the
river.  If you heard stories about it, it ended up on the other side and
collapsed a pier.

As far as fatal incidents -- and my apologies.  I could see these better
when I was going through the presentation.  Hopefully, they're legible. 
But the chart you see here of fatal incidents is national data of all of
the regions.  So the top numbers you see I have highlighted region 4 in
red and outlined that as we go down.

So to the left, each section, each subsection, the first is FY-13
fatality data.  Again, those from the public, that would be from October
1 of 2012, for FY-13, for example, through September 30th of the
following year.  So, in FY-13, we had a total of seven fatalities, which
is -- of course, one is too many.  But that is a significant amount for
our region over that period of time.

In FY-14, we had one fatality.  And in FY-15 thus far, we have had two,
for a total of ten fatalities over the last two-and-a-half years, if you
will.  Of course, we have not completed FY-15.  And the total nationally
is 43, or has been 43.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Could you go back one, Kurt?

MR. PETERMEYER:  Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I had a quick -- the bottom, the ship-boat-building,
three, cargo handling, four.  Is that the seventh?  I'm sorry.  What are
the bottom two?

MR. PETERMEYER:  I'm sorry.  I failed to mention that, Mr. Chairman. 
And they are, as such -- out of the ten fatalities, three of them that
we have had, three of them were in ship-boat-building, and four of them
were in cargo handling, longshoring activities.  The other three that
are not accounted for were unrelated ancillary duties and a variety of
--

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

MR. PETERMEYER:  This didn't turn out the way I had hoped, the view on
this.  What this is are fatality details of those numbers that I just
described.  There are 10 fatalities, as you see -- hopefully, some of
you see as listed.  So I'm going to just kind of describe those for
members of the board, what has transpired over the last three fiscal
years, in particular.

We've had, again, in FY-13, we had seven fatalities, which is
significant.  We had an individual crushed.  The first one was from a
lifting strap failure, where he was crushed by a load of pipe.

The second was an individual that was removing a generator and using a
ladder during the process.  But he removed all of the bolts and loosened
one to the point that it failed and swan-kicked the ladder out, and he
fell and was struck by the unit itself and was crushed to death.

We also had, as I described before, the event where the cruise ship
liner, during a high-winds storm in Mobile, broke away from its
lashings.  And in that process, it struck another pier, causing it to
collapse, and the employee drowned and was killed.

We also had -- sorry, I'm having a hard time reading that.  We also had
the event – I demonstrated the picture of that, as well -- where a
tugboat actually pulled next to -- during venting operations with a
natural gas barge.  We had a tugboat that had pulled up adjacent to the
barge during that operation.

They were not able to communicate, due to engine operations, what-not. 
And the fumes that were coming off of the vessel actually entered into
-- I'm sorry; the vapors entered into the tugboat, causing an explosion.
 And that did, in fact, kill one employee as well.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Just a note.

MR. PETERMEYER:  Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Tom Vos at one of our meetings gave us some details
on that one, as well.

MR. PETERMEYER:  Yes, sir.  Good.  I appreciate that.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.  Sure.

MR. PETERMEYER:  There was also an incident -- and all of these I'm
describing, the first seven of them were in FY-13.  We also had an
individual that was the head fell -- fell into the bottom of a cargo
hold.  You know, we commonly, sadly, I should say, see those incidents. 
They have decreased over time, with great emphasis towards that.  Let's
see.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Which one is it?  We can help you read it. 

MR. PETERMEYER:  I apologize.  I'm marring the words.  First, the vessel
was connected to the barge.  And requests were made.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  This is preparing to moor, the vessel to
cargo barge, and moved the barge to a different location for cargo
handling operations.

MR. PETERMEYER:  Yes, sir.  In this one, we could not identify specific
evidence as to what transpired.  All we know, the employee ended up in
the water and drowned and was killed.  His deckhand was calling for him,
and with no response.  He was not wearing a life vest at the time.

For FY-14, we had one fatality.  And this one in particular was
involving in a reacher-stacker, which we're commonly see in longshoring
operations.  And the employee was run over.

I think we even discussed yesterday -- this is, you know, one of the
common occurrences across the country, I think, is with traffic control
in these busy, busy locations, of course.

And then, in FY-15, thus far, of course, we have had two.  One was
involving the failure of a split-rim during that process.  You don't
necessarily commonly see those in maritime activities, or across any
industry.  But when they do happen, they are significant, because,
obviously, as all of these, I would say, they are highly preventable.

And then the last one was another fall, as well, where the employee fell
into an unguarded hatch to the deck below, a little over 20 feet.

Within region 4, we do have two active regional offices -- I'm sorry,
emphasis programs.  The first I would describe would be a regional
emphasis program focused on program maritime inspections.  It is all
encompassing.  It does address shipbuilding and repair, cargo handling,
and also port and harbor operations as well.

In this circumstance, annually, the area offices would -- the area
director of each of my area offices would submit a request to me,
requesting the method that they would utilize for targeting.  And they
do have the option, as also described in one of our CPL's, as utilizing
either the port or the employer method.  So that is our primary focus in
the maritime industry across the region, particularly in our federal
states.

In the state plan locations, particularly North Carolina, Tennessee,
Kentucky, and South Carolina, we have a local emphasis program that has
been established for a number of years.  And that is targeted
specifically towards ship and boat building and repair, those two
particular NAICS codes.

All right.  To give you a picture, if you will, of our inspection
activities within region 4, we do again, as you know, I believe, and
have seen through some of the presentation, is that we have a lot of
activities; therefore, we would expect a number of inspections.

The first two slides I have are focused on FY-13.  We did 87 inspections
during that time.  I point out, highlighted in red the number of
fatalities as well, as I've already described.  And then another point I
highlighted, as well, was the percentage of serious violations cited, at
87 percent.

So what I signify that for is to demonstrate that we are finding
hazards.  So we have to be diligent to ensure, as business owners, as
managers, as workers, and as OSHA, to address these conditions before an
event occurs.

This is the break.  This next slide is also firefly 13, the number of
inspections in each of the NAICS codes appropriate.  So, corridor
hanging, we did 19; shipbuilding, 34.  We did 25 inspections in
boat-building, and then a number of kind of ancillary activities, some
inspection activities outside of those, as well, which bring it to nine.

And the total number of -- the total penalty, average penalty
nationally, is just over $2,000 a violation.

For FY-14, we did 70 inspections.  You see the total as well for
nationally, just over 300.  As I mentioned before, in FY-14, we did have
one fatality.  And percent series at that time was 70 percent, meaning
70 percent of the inspections -- the inspect that we opened equated to a
-- resulted in a violation.

And here again, the details for the different areas.  For cargo
handling, we did 23 inspections; for shipbuilding, 34; and
boat-building, 13.

For FY-15, to date, and I must say this is up to August 18th, a couple
of weeks ago, we had done 90 inspections to date.  And I think one thing
this should demonstrate, we have gone up, as you see, which I'll
describe in a little bit the new process we have in place and reporting
requirements.  Hopefully, as all of you are aware of the severe injury
illness reporting.  So we have continued to focus, you know, our
activities in maritime as well to ensure we have that presence, versus
letting that dissolve away and focusing on these reports of severe
events.

Again, to date, we have had two fatalities.  And one positive thing out
of those 90 inspections, for the industry, I would expect, as employers,
has gone down -- the percentage of serious violations that we
identified.  So we are at 53 percent so far this year.

Yes, ma'am.

MS. LEVIN:  Is that a number or a percentage, that last figure?

MR. PETERMEYER:  Oh, I'm sorry.  The other slides have it percentage.  I
didn't realize it until this morning – the percentage I had left off. 
So that is 53 out of 90 had violations.  So it is not a percentage. 
Thank you for clarifying that.

Just again, a breakdown of the number of inspections in each of the
particular areas -- cargo handling, 27; 47 in shipbuilding; 14 in
boat-building; and 2 in other areas, as well.

All right.  A point I would make here -- and this by no means is my
slide; Dr. Michaels has conveyed this message consistently through his
presentations -- is the importance of safety in what we do as a unified
team.  And I see the maritime community as equal partners in this.  

You know, we are only able to reach a small percentage, and it is a
window in time, when we perform these inspections.  And the reason we do
this is partly because of the slide you see before you.  It's $200
billion annually is spent towards injuries and fatalities in the
workplace.  So, you know, that is our number-one primary focus and will
always be.

One thing that we try to promote and push toward in reaching for is
really creating a cultural shift.  I point I would make is that safety
is our priority.  It is an expectation.  It requires commitment at all
levels of the organization.  And you must strive to go beyond compliance
with OSHA rules and try to change the culture, as I would say.

One of the primary focuses and expectations that we put upon employers
are, we ask that employers, of course, do when there is no obligation to
the law, as they establish comprehensive safety and health management
system, including oversight, inspections, incident and accident
investigation, worker training, job hazard analyses, accurate and
effective injury and illness reporting, and of course, worker
involvement and participation, which is critical.

One key point I would say as well is, you know, we try to preach that we
don't want to always blame the worker.  We train the worker, and the
worker failed to do x.  We should always strive to evaluate causal
factors and determine root causes to ensure that, you know, these
incidents don't occur in the future, or are prevented, that we establish
controls and eliminate exposure.

Some of the areas we focused many of these, as you will see necessarily
don’t relate directly to the maritime industry.  But we -- but many of
them do.  So, targeted areas in particular, we have a heavy emphasis
towards youth workers, immigrant, and vulnerable workers, small
business, and also temporary workers, and mis-classified workers.

Some of our primary emphasis points for the coming year, for the current
year, are ergonomics, workplace violence, chemical exposures, where
there is an insufficient or no established occupational exposure limit. 
We are focusing more on increasing our media presence and really in
promoting the word "safety."

And lastly, I would point out there is great emphasis towards criminal
referrals, where appropriate.  And we take these very seriously.  For
years, in many cases, we've done so on fatalities.  But we have, in
fact, expanded that.  If you've kept your eyes open to the news a little
bit, we had a case recently out of Birmingham where an individual, a
roofing contractor, had a number of employees that were injured during a
storm, working on a roof.

And he provided false information to OSHA, actually trying to re-create
the scene, provided fall protection afterwards.  And he was sentenced to
three years for that -- I'm sorry, three years probation, what the
settlement worked out to be.

So we see these as an important mechanism to leverage folks to do the
right thing, especially those that don't have any interest in doing so.

As I mentioned, as a touchstone, we do have new expanded reporting
requirements, which, of course, has altered our focus a little bit.  You
know, we had a number of these equate to additional inspections, which
of course, we have to readjust in our target areas because, of course,
it does impact our program, our planned inspections.

And unless any members of the board would like me to explain the
requirements, I'll move on from there.

Part of that, the severe injury, was reporting.  We do have a triage
that we put into place, because I think you have to understand that
there is no way we could inspect all of them with the resources that we
have.  So we have triaged them with certain criteria as to where we
would do, when we would do an inspection.  And for the remainder, we
would handle through our rapid response investigations, which are done
through basically through the phone and fax system and through
telephonic conversation, which you probably have maybe experienced with
the non (unintelligible) process very similar in many years past.  For
the last 20 years, we have been doing that.

And lastly, I wanted to touch on temporary workers.  This is a
particular focus in region 4, and it is a focus nationally.  And we
continue seeing this uptick.  Three million people are employed by
standard companies -- I'm sorry, staffing agencies every week, eleven
million temporary contract workers are hired by our U.S. staffing firms
over the course of a year.

So we continue to see this increase.  And we are putting great focus on
ensuring that the awareness and knowledge is out there and reaching out
to these agencies that put forth these employees.

I put this gentleman on the screen to really signify the importance of,
hopefully, what we do.  It is not an individual that worked in the
maritime industry; please forgive me.  But this is a picture of Day
Davis.  His nickname is Day, Lawrence Davis.  And he was -- this was the
photo of the last day of his life.

He -- it was the first day on the job.  And he came to work that day. 
He was so excited.  He was a brand-new employee.  He had never had a job
in his life before.  And he went into the bathroom, and, you know, young
kids nowadays, you take a selfie and want to show the girlfriend, the
wife, the husband, what-have-you, the family members and how proud he
was.

And not an hour later, he was dead.  And so, again, just to signify the
importance of what we do and what all of you do, and what we do is as a
unified team.  And of course, for temporary workers, why are they at
such a risk?  Well, it's lack of knowledge, awareness, and the change in
surroundings.

Host employers, we have seen, don't have the same commitment to
temporary workers.  And the employer who bears the risk of the injury,
the temp agency, generally does not control safety and health.

Some of the things that we are doing as an agency, I'm thinking that, or
I hope are making a difference in particularly region 4, we are engaging
these temporary agencies and organizations, in particular the national
ones as well, through national associations.  We are commonly
distributing and developing outreach and guidance materials.

We do, in fact, code and track all of our inspection activities as it
relates to these particular companies.  And we have, of course, trained
our compliance staff, really for recognition and also, you know, to be
able to recognize inappropriate performance as it relates to industry
practice, internal policies.

And there's a significant emphasis that has been placed on the
evidentiary analysis, the legal analysis to determine this joint
employer relationship so we can, in fact, in some cases, where
appropriate, hold these temporary agencies accountable, because they are
in fact the employer.  But in many cases, there is a joint relationship
where we're citing both entities.

And that's all I have today for all of you.  Again, I appreciate the
time, the opportunity to be here today.  And I'll be happy to take any
questions you may have.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Love the closing picture, by the way.

So, let's open it up for questions now from the committee, please.  If
you have a question, please, raise your hand so I can recognize you.

(Pause.) 

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  Hearing none -- you're not off the hook
yet.  Hold on.

The public, is there a question, anyone from the public?  Raise your
hand if you have a question.

(Pause.)

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  You're still not off the hook, because I've got a
couple of questions.  They're easy ones.  These are softballs.  All
right?

(Laughter.) 

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  You talked a little bit -- first I want to tell you,
a very informative presentation.  We appreciate your coming here and
honesty and candor and all that in the information that you gave us.  I
think what resonates us with all that you said about the injuries, but
particularly the fatalities.  You know, we've very sensitive to that. 
And ours is a very hazardous occupation.

But, specifically, would you talk a little bit about voluntary programs,
in general in the region?  In other words, are you seeing activity and
the demonstration or the SHARP for the BPP programs?  Is there something
we can do to kind of -- our experience is those people, those employers
that are in these programs generally, you know, are a cut above the
average employer, and results show.

So I think -- so could you make some general comments about voluntary
activity in the region?

MR. PETERMEYER:  Sure.  We have, round about, it changes a little bit. 
It's declined a little bit, the number of these sites.  But we have in
the neighborhood of 200.  We've had as many as 250 within a two-year
period in that neighborhood.

So it has decreased somewhat.  But as you've described, Mr. Chairman, I
would hope that these are the best of the best, and that is our
expectations.  I would tell you that I have reviewed those reports
personally, particularly like that.  So, I must tell you I know null
about it off the top of my head as to the numbers that we have in the
maritime sector.

But again, you know, these are the leaders in the industry.  And we
place great emphasis on that.  I know I do in particular because, you
know, we can leverage them to make a difference with some of the other
employers in their area, and of course, those that bring in contractors,
such as well.

I'm not sure if I answered your question.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  No, it is.  One of the things that strikes me is,
you know, in the shipbuilding and repair industry -- I'm not quite sure
about the longshore industry -- but there are a number of, as you point
out, mom-and-pop shops, you know, in the shipbuilding and repair
industry and all the way to the larger yards.

So one of the opportunities is to try to stimulate, you know, engagement
and involvement, safety and health into those smaller employers.  And
this is sort of in the back of my personal head, is maybe somehow
getting those -- getting the smaller and mid-size employers engaged even
more in the maritime industry in the path towards some form of voluntary
relationship.  That's all.

MR. PETERMEYER:  Yes, right.  And I greatly appreciate that input.

I would tell you that many of our offices do have substantial
significant relationships with local groups, associations.  Mobile in
particular, as I believe we've discussed before, I was area director
there for a number of years.  And we did extensive work in the maritime
community, particularly focusing on those small mom-and-pop shipbuilding
entities, because of course, the Gulf Coast is really kind of full of
them.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Yes. 

MR. PETERMEYER:  And I would hope that we made a great difference and
impact.  One of the outcomes of those interactions, cooperative
relationships was, you know, the 30-hour and the 10-hour courses.  So, I
think OSHA in general is real proud of that.  And we always want to
continue to try to reach these small entities that really don't have the
resources, necessarily, or the significant resources, and many lack
understanding and knowledge.

But we have really don't have the resources necessarily or the
significant resources, and maybe lack understanding and knowledge.  But
we have diminished our compliance assistance personnel.  As you may or
may not know, for a number of years we had compliance assistance
specialists in each one of our offices, for the most part, across the
country.

At the present time, I'm down to four compliance assistance specialists.
 But with OSHA, we always adjust and overcome.  And we quite frequently
use our  management staff and our compliance personnel, our coach here,
who's commonly referred to, to pick up the slack with outreach
activities.  So we continue to focus on that.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you very much.

Any go-backs from the committee?

MR. EGBE:  Yes. 

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Yes, one.  Solomon, please.

MR. EGBE:  Yeah, I think I have two things.  First of all, I know the
chairman mentioned jokingly about alcohol being involved in the first
part of your show.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  It was a half-joke, okay?  But I know it's a very
serious thing.  So.

MR. EGBE:  Yes.  But I know, I mean I have noticed in the OSHA
guidelines, they usually just mention that the employer should have a
drug and alcohol program.  Is this something you're looking at?  Let me
put it this way.  Is there a large number of incidents that you've found
to involve drug and alcohol during your investigations?

MR. PETERMEYER:  It would be hard to quantify "large."  But there are --
the term "large" to describe.  But there are definitely a number of
cases where we are investigating fatalities or serious incidents where
we receive toxicology reports, and particularly with those who were
killed in the workplace.  But there are a percentage of those that do
involve drugs and alcohol, sadly.

Of course, I would tell you that, from experience and many years
experience and, you know, well over 150 cases across my hands and where
I have been involved personally, where many of those, probably nearly
all of those, regardless of the drugs, alcohol involvement, they were
preventable incidents.

And I don't know that I could tell you off the top of my head an
incident that was not preventable.  So I would say that, in general, I
think my opinion, professional opinion that the drugs and alcohol really
isn't the issue at that point.  It's not that we're saying that it's
acceptable.  But these incidents were preventable regardless of that.

MR. EGBE:  Okay.  Thank you.

I just mentioned that because the most recent case in New York, where
the DA actually prosecuted the fork lift driver who ran over the
longshore lady, is a clear indication that that is a major problem.

I just think we should start looking into having some kind of best
practices for implementation across the board, going forward.

The other thing I want to mention, my next question is about the
temporary workers.  And this is going to piggyback from Tim Podue's
questions about the quick cards.

Would you understand that the regulation is designed for OSHA to direct
its enforcement on employers, not the worker?  But for people like
temporary workers, where you're trying to train them, when nobody really
owns them completely, they are moving into real hazardous environments
without any real employers paying or investing the time to train them,
don't you think we should have certain documents that actually provides
direct guidance to those type of employees instead of having documents
like the way we're trying to move now, directing those instructions to
employers?

Because these people are not really owned by any particular employer. 
So, shouldn't we really look carefully at the language we use in those
documents?  So a temporary worker who's not really linked to a permanent
boss can look at that document and understand that this, "I need to do
one, two, three, four, and five to be safe in this environment"?

MR. PETERMEYER:  I appreciate that, Solomon.  I would tell you that we
do have guidance of that nature.  We have really a location on the
website dedicated to temporary workers.  A lot of our outreach
activities are focused on those individuals, in many cases, as I
described before, as far as target areas.  Many cases are youth workers.
 There are also immigrant workers, vulnerable as we would consider
workers that are employed in these circumstances.

I would tell you that I would also say that on your point that really
nobody has ownership or takes control, it is the employer's
responsibility.  And we take that very seriously.  Again, you know, the
staffing agency would be the employer of the individual.  But depending
on the oversight, we do look at this heavily.  So, say, the host
employer provides that supervision; we would also consider that to be
their responsibility.

So, part of that, as I mentioned before in our analysis of those
circumstances, to ensure that we obtained sufficient information to be
able to support any citation, and it's really -- I would say it's not
really about the citation.  It's about the corrective action and making
sure that we're providing the protection these workers, they deserve.

So, you know, we do -- some of them, I think we could always do more. 
But we do have a number of products and resources available both to the
worker, and as well to employers engaged both in the host operation and
the temporary agencies.  So.

MR. EGBE:  One last comment.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  No worries.  Okay. 

MR. EGBE:  Looking at your fatalities, I'm also a member of NMSA.  I
represent the Steamship Trade Association in Baltimore.  And there's two
fatalities that were identified during the NMSA conference.

One involved a female longshore lady checker, who was run over and
degloved by a forklift.  This was, I think, last year.  And then the
second was a female longshore worker who was run over by a contractor
handling yard trucks, yard hustlers.  This was about four months ago.

I didn't see them on that list.  I just want to make sure that all the
fatalities in that region are actually captured.

MR. PETERMEYER:  I'm sorry.  Can you tell me where these occurred?

MR. EGBE:  These were two hourly workers.  One was -- I think they were
in Savannah, I think.

MR. PETERMEYER:  I can tell you that this is specifically on our
database.  And all fatalities, there is significant oversight.  I can't
imagine one was missed.  But maybe the details may not jive -- 

MR. EGBE:  Okay.  Maybe the description was different.

(Cross-talk.)

MR. PETERMEYER:  I'd be happy to discuss any which one of those, and
especially if there's something that we -- may not have been reported to
us.  I would expect that's not the case.  And Mr. Vos, I'm sure you're
familiar with John Vos, who is our regional maritime coordinator, is out
of that office.  So we can definitely clarify that very quickly.

But again, that is out of our database directly, and the explanation of
details of each one.

MR. EGBE:  Okay.  I just want to make sure that's correct, because the
hourly representation of the SIC I'm the only member here who has any
connection with them.

(Cross-talk.)

MR. EGBE:  So I want to make sure that we are represented.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Absolutely.  So, maybe you can discuss offline the
details to see if they're maybe matched up in a different description or
something of that nature.  I know you want to capture -- I know you want
to make sure it is captured.  So we'll figure it out.

MR. PETERMEYER:  Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay?

Jennifer.

MS. LEVIN:  Mr. Petermeyer, can you point out OSHA's document directives
or letter of interpretation that sets out the employer responsibility
for temporary workers so that everybody can understand what the
responsibility is to ensure that training and PPE and those appropriate
protective measures that take an on-the-job, where OSHA makes a
pronouncement about the responsibility of both the staffing agency and
the host employer.

MR. PETERMEYER:  Well, we have -- I don't know that I could tell you the
number of the information.  But all of that is posted on the Web, of
course.  You know, again, it's been put on presentations, it's been --
the relationship has been established with the American Staffing
Association, I believe it's called.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Right.

MR. PETERMEYER:  Amy is shaking her head, so I think that's the correct
name for the company.  I don't know that I could tell you off the top of
my head where that is.  But I would expect that it is on our website.

We definitely have fact sheets and information that describe best
practices and responsibilities of the employers on both sides, host and
temporary agency.

MS. LEVIN:  Right.  I think Solomon's point is that some employers don't
recognize that they do have a responsibility even though there's a
staffing agency that sends the workers over.  The staffing agency thinks
this is happening at the host, wherein it's not.

So it's good to know exactly, you know, where OSHA has spoken on that.

MS. WANGDAHL:  So I just want to say if you were to go onto OSHA.gov and
search "temp workers," "temporary workers," it will bring you up to the
website, to the FAQ's, fact sheets that refer to -- we can also send the
direct link to the committee once we get back.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Correct me if I'm wrong, but was that one of the
items on our wish list?

PARTICIPANT:  Yep.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  This shipbuilding subcommittee yesterday identified
things that the -- under the charter that the shipbuilding group,
workgroup would look at onboard.  We identified the issue of temporary
workers.

It can be a complex issue.  And you get into supervision and who
supervises, et cetera.  So I appreciate what Solomon is saying.  So we
just wanted to make sure that, you know, any questions about it were
cleared up.  And maybe we can provide even further guidance to help
employers.  You know, in this interest, we understand responsibility, et
cetera.

So, was that it for you, Solomon?

MR. EGBE:  Yeah, that's it for now.

(Laughter.) 

(Cross-talk.)

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Well, I don't want to cut you off.

MR. EGBE:  Why the stutter was because in our subcommittee they're
trying to move the language away from the way it was originally to
directing the instructions to the employer.  And let's assume, for us
here, for most of us here, it may not be a problem because we have
strong unions.  But you may have private (unintelligible) who have
terminal workers who come from anywhere.

And any longshoreman is going to tell you the training to be a
longshoreman is extremely complex.  It takes years to accomplish the
whole process.  So, if we are developing guidance for the maritime
sector, we should have the type of documents that a temporary worker in
our industry can look at it and say, "Okay, these are the type of things
I need to do."

Because no employer is going to have enough time to train you to the
level of a competent longshoreman.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  May I kindly suggest maybe this is something that
the longshore committee could work on in concert with the shipbuilding
committee to see if there's a hole we can help fill there.  You know
what I'm saying?

So, we hear you.  Temporary workers is a very important point.  It's an
emphasis program by the agency.  Temporary workers are all -- you're
exactly right.  Oftentimes their injuries are not counted, for different
reasons.  Or if they're counted, they're sort of fuzzy.  We think
they're underrepresented in terms of statistics.  So all those points
are well made.  

And in the maritime industry, we do use a large amount -- and when I say
"maritime," I mean shipbuilding and longshore -- of temporary workers. 
And it is an issue that we, I think we, this committee, can contribute
to.

Tim.

MR. PODUE:  And not to pile on, I would just like to make a statement
towards that, is that we appreciate the fact that that information is
out there for temporary workers.  It's been on our website.  But when it
comes down to brass tacks, I'm looking at trying to get the information
out to people and actually they can read it, like Solomon is saying
here, is that I don't think most temporary workers are going to go,
before they get a job for the day or a week or whatever -- they're not
going to go to the website to see what their rights are or what the do's
and don'ts.

So that kind of piling on, I guess, a little bit.  Just to say that, you
know, you have to actually get the information down into the hands of
the workers.

MR. PETERMEYER:  And I would add to that, sort of that again, a lot of
our emphasis has been reaching the staffing agencies and their umbrella
organizations at the national level to ensure that word is disseminated,
so that even if, you know, Mr. Employee, our worker, is not familiar,
doesn't know whose obligation it is, whose responsibility is what, we
would hope that the employer, with that knowledge has been transmitted,
they would do the right thing.

So that's why we've always, in our line, at least tried to really focus,
target both sides, reaching the employers, the businesses, as well as
reaching the workers.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

Any more from -- go-backs from the committee?

(No audible response.) 

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  I think you're officially off the hook. 
And thank you very much.  It was a very informative presentation.  I
know you're a busy guy, so thanks for joining us.  We really appreciate
it.

MR. PETERMEYER:  Thank you.

MS. LEVIN:  I'd like to mark and move into the record as Exhibit 4 the
PowerPoint presentation by Kurt Petermeyer, in Docket OSHA 2015 0014.

(OSHA 2015 0014 Exhibit 4 was accepted into the record.) 

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  We're going to take a break.  I'd like
to start promptly on the hour.  So we're just a few minutes behind time,
so I'd like to start promptly at eleven o'clock, please.  Thank you.

(Whereupon, at 10:47 a.m., a recess was taken, to resume at 11:10 a.m.)

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  We went off the record for a moment for
a recess, for a break.  So we're back on the record here.  It's 11:10. 
So, what we're going to do here is bring Les Grove, Area Director for
the Tampa Office, up.  And are you loaded up?  Do you have slides, Les? 
Are you loaded up?

MR. GROVE:  Yes. 

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Very good.  Okay.  So, it's 11:10.  And I don't want
to squeeze you.  So, if you're -- take your time and all of that.  So I
think we're fine.  I think we're just fine.

So, with that, everybody is back.  Where's Tim at?  Oh, getting coffee
or something.  All right.  Everybody is back, all committee members.  So
with that, let me open the floor up to Les Grove, Area Director for the
OSHA Tampa Office.

Les, the floor is yours.

MR. GROVE:  Well, good morning, and thank you for allowing me to speak
with you today.  Basically, I'm going to go over a little information
about our office and I thought it might be interesting to talk about the
two cases.

Our office is, it covers 20 towns in central Florida, stretching from
the west coast to the east coast.  And obviously, we have both coasts,
and we do have a fair amount of maritime activity.

The office has, we have 15 safety specialists, nine industrial
hygienists, a total of 24 compliance officers, a compliance assistant
specialist.  And we're lucky the office has one of four in region 4.  A
couple of whistleblower investigators that don't report to me any
longer; they report to the regional office.  A three administrative
staff of people who support personnel.  Three assistant area directors
and myself, for a total of 34.  It used to be up to almost 40, but we've
shrunk over the years.

In maritime inspections, Kurt kind of touched on this, and I won't
belabor the point on the REP too much, but we end up doing maritime
inspections based off complaints.  We receive a lot of complaints.  Some
years, we'll have as many as 1,400 complaints.  And with the reporting
requirement, the new one, we've had almost 400 of those.  And just add
that in, we get a lot of complaints.

Referrals -- that can be anything from the police saying there was an
accident, and we go there.  Referrals, also the employer reporting
hospitalization, amputations, or -- those items.  Fatalities --
fortunately, we don't have as many as we have in the past.  Back in
2005, we did 70 fatality investigations just in 20 counties.  This year,
we're currently at, I believe it's 23.

2005 was right after the four hurricanes came across Florida, and I
think that really had something to do with it, because it was a
tremendous spike.

Site-specific targeting -- that no longer exists; it has been sunsetted.
 We finished our cycles.  But we did get into some maritime operations
through the site-specific targeting of information per client, where
it's based off of reports that the employers send to us about their
injury and illness rates under the OSHA --initiative.  And based on
that, we get sites with high injury and illness rates.  But again,
that's sunsetted now.

The regional emphasis program in region 4 covers program maritime
inspections.  Kurt had a slide that talked about all this, but the scope
of it, I think, covers all the maritime and shipbuilding repair, marine
cargo handling, navigation services, the shipping port and harbor
operations, other support activities for water transportation, port and
harbor operations, boat-building, marinas engaged in recreational boat
repair located on or adjacent to navigable waterways.

If there's something that we missed on that REP, I'll have to you all
tell me because that sure seems to cover everything.

Again, as Kurt mentioned, you can do that by port area or employer
method, and the area director has to decide that.  We use the employer
method in Tampa.

Fourteen-plus years ago when I was the Area Director in Columbia, South
Carolina, a state-planned state, we used the port area because we were
traveling from Columbia, South Carolina, to Charleston, South Carolina. 
If you use the port method -- oh, I'm sorry, the employer method and you
went out to Charleston, if that employer wasn't unloading the ship,
wasn't working that day, you'd just turn around and you went back home.

So we did it by the port.  When we showed up, whoever was working was
inspected.

One of the inspections is a shipyard inspection that was based off a
referral involving a fall.  This inspection involved a contractor who
was hired to remove insulation and clean the large sulfur tank in the
cargo section of a barge at a shipyard.  So the contractor came in.  And
picture -- the second inspection, I had very few pictures, but at least
I have a couple here.  It was like this picture zone.

There's a cord to access the top of the tank.  And that's how you access
it.  There's not much space there.  You have a working space of about
four feet, and I'll talk about that a little bit more.

That day of the incident, about 6:30 a.m., employees entered the tank
and they were going to clean the sulfur dust that accumulated on the top
of the tank and also in various structural pieces.  Three employees went
in.  They were working, as I said, in approximately a four-foot-high
crawl-crouch space between the top of the sulfur tank and the bottom of
the top deck of the barge.

I don't know how you could do it for too long, because it's definitely
not a comfortable position to be working in.

At the time of the incident, the foreman was sweeping sulfur from the
top of the tank, while the two employees used spray bottles of water and
rags to clean sulfur off of the surfaces.  Half-hour later, at
approximately 7:00 a.m., one of the employees who was working at the
tapered section of the tank -- and I have a little photo or a diagram
that will show that -- had his back to the edge and he was moving
backwards when he lost his footing at the edge and fell over.

He landed on a catwalk 17 feet below, bounced off of that, and fell the
remaining 10 to 12 feet to the surface below.  Amazingly, he had an
angel on his shoulder that day, because he was injured, but we were able
to interview him, and he did recover.  I'm not sure how.  That one
easily could have turned into a fatality.

The tank configuration, as the diagram the compliance officer drew,
looking down, the lines on the outside are a rail.  That's about two
feet away from the edge of the tank on both sides.  But the tank tapers
to the left side on the screen.  And as it tapers, the fall hazard
becomes a little greater.

On the left, there's a -- I'll show it on the next slide, too.  But
there's a arrow that says "2.75 feet," that's where the employee fell. 
So he was backing up the tapered section, apparently believed there was
only a two-foot gap, but he fell right in there.

This is an overhead or side view that the compliance officer drew.  And
where the X's are, the employee was up at the yellow X up on top.  That
little -- I think this has a laser.  It doesn't?  No?  The little box
down in the center there is the scaffold that he fell on, or the
platform.  And then he landed where the red X is.

And again, I'm not sure how he survived.  But somebody was watching
after him that day.

The findings -- the employer actually had fall protection equipment on
top of the tank, but they weren't using it.  The fall protection policy
was verbal, and basically it said if you have to reach over the edge,
you wear a harness and tie off the frame.  The two supervisors also
said, "Well, we really didn't give anybody formal or much fall
protection training.  Just told them, 'Wear it.'"

The employer did not assess the space layout.  They didn't really go in
and determine what the tank configuration actually was.  They didn't
know that it was tapered at one end and that the gap where they could
fall through became greater as it tapered inward.  And again, from 2
feet to 2.75 feet of a gap where the employee fell.

And the foreman said that if had he known about the tapering of the tank
at one end, he would have required fall protection.

Citations we issued -- 1915-77C, basically for not having the employees
wear fall protection while exposed to the fall hazard of 17 to 27 feet
while cleaning sulfur dust from elevated surfaces, $4,900 penalty.

And 1915-152A -- this one, there were all kinds of steel beams under
there where you could really bash your head.  And they weren't wearing
hardhats.  But the reason they gave was that they kept falling off,
because you're crouching and moving all around.  But they needed it. 
They could have gotten one with a chinstrap, you know, so they wouldn't
fall off.

That case settled.  The employer entered into an informal settlement
agreement, accepting the violations with a penalty reduction, penalty
payment plan.  And they did put in beta methods, measures to make sure
that something similar wouldn't happen in the future.

Okay.  Another case that I think is a little interesting, a boat-builder
inspection.  This one came off the site-specific targeting system.  We
went in, and it was going to be a comprehensive safety inspection.  The
assigned compliance officer was actually a certified safety professional
who had lateralled into a vacant industrial hygienist position.

He was out of the Navy and was an IH for the Navy.  But he applied
originally on a safety specialist certification, and I selected him for
a safety specialist position.

Then he came home to the IH fold.  I'm an IH, so I was glad he came
back.  He took the industrial hygienist position.  But he can pretty
much do the whole gamut as far as the inspection activity.

He conducted a comprehensive safety inspection and also addressed the
help items that were identified, since he was cross-trained.  Did a lot
of monitoring.  He monitored for noise for the grinding operations, for
stirring the lamination building.  The lamination building got monitored
for employee who mixed and poured foam that contained methylene dysfenal
isocyanade into a mold.

Then they also monitored for 1.6 hexamethylene diisocyanate momopolymer
and hexamethylene diisocyanate in the varnish department.  And that's
where they were doing a spray application of a sealer.  Took wipe
samples in the varnish building for isocyanates.  Wipe samples were
taken in the new assembly building, where they were sanding lead
ballasts.  

Citation issued $44,100.  First one -- and I'm sorry.  That's the only
picture that's really relevant to the citations.  But the Yale two-ton
hoist was missing the hook safety latch, and the second hoist didn't
receive an annual periodic inspection.  I think it was like two or three
years overdue.

Exit doors weren't marked.  Signs posted for direction of travel.  The
nearest exist was lacking.  The grinder operator he sampled for noise
was exposed to 97.9 decibels above our missile exposure limit.  Had not
had an annual audiogram for seven years -- supposed to do that annually.
 And annual training had not been conducted for years, no noise
training.

1910-132 for personal protective equipment.  The painter spraying
liquids containing isocyanates, had exposed neck and facial skin.  I
would have put a picture in there, but you could tell who the employee
was.  Cited suited up in Tyvec, had a respirator, had head covering,
but, you know, facial and neck skin was exposed, and she could become
sensitized to isocynates from contact with it.

1910-134, respirator program, the administrator wasn't qualified.  The
person doing the fit test didn't know how to do it.  He's doing it
incorrectly.  Respiratory hazard assessment had not been conducted, and
a medical evaluation that's necessary when you put somebody in a
negative-pressure respirator was not complete.  And Appendix D was not
provided to employees.

Lockout tag-out, 1910-147, the affected employees were not trained.  And
training for the authorized employees was not documented.  So they
definitely had a lack, lacking implementation of their lockout tag-out
program.

Employees expected to use fire extinguishers had not been trained. 
Table router had exposed blades three-eighths of an inch above the
table.  Horizontal belt sander had an exposed midpoint on the back side.
 Lead hazard assessment had not been conducted for the ballast work.

Portable sander handle and the shelf had accumulations of lead.  You
basically have to make sure that surfaces where an employee could pick
up lead are maintained clean and free of lead contamination.

1910.1025L, the employees grinding lead ballast had not been formed, the
content of Appendices A and B of the lead standard.  Safety data sheets
were not maintained for the urethane sealer catalyst.  They contained
isocyanates.  Painter and foamer, which sprayed sealer and mixed and
poured foam containing isocyanates, had not received hazard
communication training.

Asked them about isocynates, they really didn't know what the exposures
could lead to, you know, what the effects were of isocyanate exposure.

The spray booth didn't have a monometer.  The evaluation that
unintelligible industrial truck operators performance had not been
conducted at least every three years.  They hadn't done it for seven
years.  Electrical cords were taped to an extension cord, effectively
making one long cord.  So they were using that in lieu of permanent
wiring.  And extension cord was displaced and wrapped with masking tape,
which is not a proper way of doing it, obviously.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Wow.

MR. GROVE:  With the isocynate sample, we did not find the employees
overexposed.  But we did issue a hazard alert letter regarding the
exposure to the 1-6 hexamethylene -- the homo-polymers -- 

(Laughter.) 

MR. GROVE:  Isocyanate -- recommended that they voluntarily take the
necessary steps to materially reduce the exposures.  For the
hexamethylene diisocyanate, we did have an exposure for the employee;
however, it was below the OEL, so we couldn't issue a citation.  And for
the 1-6 hexametylene diisocyanate homo-polymers, there was a small
exposure level, but there was no OEL.  So we couldn't issue a citation
for overexposure.

But again, we did do the hazard alert letter to make sure that they
protect the employees.

Employer entered into an informal settlement agreement.  They accepted
violations with penalty reduction and penalty payment plan.  They came
in -- really did a good job as far as providing abatement information. 
And they eliminated the use of isocyanates.  So they didn't have to
worry about that, and their employees won't become sensitized.

And apparently, I was trying to get through this, if you catch up.  I
thought that would take much longer.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I did not apply any pressure, did I?

MR. GROVE:  There was a wink-wink, I think.  So I got the message.

(Laughter.) 

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Very good.  So, let's see.  I want to thank you for
that, and some of the details of the cases that you went through.  So I
appreciate your attendance here.

So let's open it up for the committee.  Don Raffo.

MR. RAFFO:  I just have sort of a statement, and it's not particularly
directed at you.  But this group here, whether it's shipyard or
longshoring, we're here all in a sense to protect the safety of the
worker.  And we come to these meetings, and, you know, we sort of throw
out issues from our eyes, from our perspective, from the union's
perspective, from the management perspective.

And we work on products and try to come up with ideas to help save the
worker or help the worker.  I guess you -- not necessarily you, but you
and all the other compliance officers in the audience see things from a
little bit different perspective, maybe the other side of the fence.

So, my two cents is I would sort of encourage the compliance officers
when you come to our workgroups, whether it's longshoring or shipyards,
to -- you know, we're not asking you to identify an employer.  But if
you see issues that would be helpful for us to look at, come up with a
product, I think that would be very helpful to see the shipyards, at
least from my perspective, from the other side of the fence, and give us
some ideas that we may work on to provide worker health and safety from
your perspective.

So it's just sort of a general comment that, you know, when everyone is
out doing their job on a day-to-day basis, if someone comes back and
says, "You know, this seems to be a common thread," or "that seems to be
a common thread," I would encourage you to come to us and say, "You
know, we see this.  Maybe you guys should take a look at it, see if you
can help out the industry by putting out a product or doing something."

So that's all I want to say.  We've seen your presentation.  We've seen
other presentations on issues of compliance.  And I think I'm the last
slide.  If you turned it around, I think only maybe 30 or 40 percent of
the shipyards or the maritime facilities you investigated were actually
in compliance.  

So, you know, from your standpoint, I think there's clearly work both of
our groups could do to try to get that number down.  So anything you
could do, ideas, information, you could do -- and I'm not picking on
you.

MR. GROVE:  Oh, you can pick on me, it's fine.  I'm the one sitting
here.

MR. RAFFO:  Any information you could come back to us, I think would be
welcome.  So we would encourage that.  And I don't think anyone would go
back after you.  They have whistleblower protection, right?

(No audible response.) 

(Laughter.) 

MR. RAFFO:  So we would encourage you to do that and come to us with any
ideas you would have.

MR. GROVE:  Actually, I have a staff meeting on Monday.  And I'll raise
that with the staff.  And if we do have some information, so I don't get
in trouble, I'll go through the proper channels and funnel it through my
boss, Kurt Petermeyer.

MR. RAFFO:  Thank you.

MR. GROVE:  Certainly, if they probably could see some information, that
would be helpful.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  And just to comment on that, I know after lunch, we
have a presentation by Steve Butler.  And the Maritime Steering
Committee met yesterday, and perhaps they have some observations and
tips they want to share with us, as well.

Other questions from the committee?

Yes, Jim.

MR. RONE:  Sir.  Jim Rone, Washington State Maritime Safety Compliance
Program.

The type and size of employer of the second case study that you threw
out there, was that pretty typical as far as laundry list of hazards
identified?

MR. GROVE:  Probably not.  I think they had more, not what they were
telling us, as they had been much larger.  In the economic downturn,
they shrank.  So they lost about two-thirds of their employee roll.  And
they claim because of that, they just lost track of things.

Now, the people that had one role were taking on three or four roles,
and things were just getting dropped by the wayside.

MR. RONE:  Awesome.  Thanks.

MR. GROVE:  On the good point, they were on the rebound.  So they were
getting larger.  And they actually came in, and they hired somebody to
take care of the safety and health and do a better job.  And they should
be on a better track now.

MR. RONE:  All right.  Great presentation.  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Other questions of the committee?

I just have one question.  Is it your experience, like with the yards
that are -- I'll call them small yards for lack of a better term, that
do go through these cyclical product cycles in which there's work, and
then there's maybe not so much work.

Is there a tendency to rely more extensively on temporary workers in
those situations?  Has it been your experience in your area?

MR. GROVE:  I haven't seen that.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay. 

MR. GROVE:  But there are temporary workers involved.  I just haven't
seen an uptick in that particular sector, anyway.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Very good.  Thank you.

Any more questions in committee?

(No audible response.) 

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  If the public has a question, could you raise your
hand so I could recognize you?

(No audible response.) 

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you very much.  I appreciate your attending. 
Does anything keep you up all night?  You know, as you are awake at
night, as it relates to your job and your area?

MR. GROVE:  Fatalities.  When you have a fatality, as Kurt Petermeyer
was saying earlier, most of them are -- not most of them -- all of them
are preventable.  And it's heart-wrenching when you're dealing with the
family, you know, talking to the next-of-kins, and they ask you, "Why
did it happen?"  There is no good answer to give them.

And I just feel terrible, you know, if there's nothing you can tell
them.  You can't bring them back.  The only thing we can tell them is
that we're going to try to make it better so nobody goes through what
you're going through.  And (unintelligible) loosely, because the real
hard one is when you're doing a fatality investigation and the facts
turn out that you can't prove that there was even a violation.  That's
hard to explain.

I mean, it doesn't happen often, but there are cases where the employer
actually did not violate any regulation or any best practice.  Something
happened.  And those are real difficult trying to explain to the
next-of-kin.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you very much.  Well, thank you very much for
your presentation and what you do out there.

MR. GROVE:  Thank you again.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.  Appreciate it.

MS. LEVIN:  I'd like to mark as Exhibit 5 and enter into the record the
PowerPoint presentation by Les Grove, both PowerPoint presentations.

(OSHA 2015 0014 Exhibit 5 was accepted into the record.) 

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  We're going to move into our last
presentation this morning.  And we've got Matthew Pauli, who is
Industrial Hygienist out of the OSHA Anchorage, Alaska, office.

And if you can remember this, after your conclusion of your
presentation, I would welcome your thoughts either on or off the record
regarding climate change.

(Laughter.) 

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  So anyway, are you getting queued up there?

While he's queuing up, do you want to -- I think we're on it.  So, the
floor is all yours, Matthew.

MR. PAULI:  My name is Matt Pauli, compliance officer with the
Department of Labor OSHA with the Anchorage area office.  I spent my
entire career in the Anchorage area office on the Anchorage, pretty
much, grew up there.  I’ve been all over the state, so I had a really
unique environment in order to practice as a safety and health
professional up there.

I've seen a lot of different operations on the maritime side.  Again, to
tell everybody that if your feet are wet, there's probably a federal
OSHA jurisdiction unless you go beyond three miles.  So, I've been on
production platforms, production islands in the oil industry, seafood
processing on the big factory boats and Asian G-boats, longshoreman
marine and of course shipyards from big to small.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  So, is Alaska a state plan state?

MR. PAULI:  It is a state plan state.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.

MR. PAULI:  And that's one reason Federal OSHA is there, that when the
state developed their program, they did not accept the maritime
regulations at that point.  So we had to have a federal presence.  And
it’s why I'm here.

So on this particular one, I was in inspection in March 2014.  It
involved some crane operations down at the Port of Anchorage, actually
one of the closer inspections we can do because it's a mile from the
area office.  Most of our jurisdiction, of course, is beyond Anchorage. 
So there's lots of traveling involved, both -- needless to say, I have
lots of frequent flyer miles.

It was a complaint that was actually initiated by the employer
representative.  Most of the time, the employer representative, he just
wasn't getting any satisfaction from his employer.  So we have a really
good relationship with this particular company and the workers that are
down there.

So, he initially filed a formal complaint.  A lot of the complaint had
to do with the environmental conditions that occur during the winter in
Anchorage, the orientation of the vessel as it allegedly exposed the
crane operators to the vessel's stacked gases, and, you know, crane
operator complaints.  So a lot of that was based -- that that formed the
basis of the complaint by the employer representative.

So, I did hint on the environmental conditions.  It was winter.  It was
mid-March.  Generally, in the winter, the prevailing breeze or
prevailing wind is from the north, down to Port Anchorage.  The vessels
operate on their own power -- on their own generator power during any
cargo operations on the 18 services on the vessel itself.

So, there is no short power hookup at the Port Anchorage.  So they had
to maintain the generators.  There was some crane cab ventilation
questions itself.

The particular cranes -- I did two visits down there in regards to the
inspection.  There are three cranes that this company operates.  One was
erected in the mid-80s.  The others were post-earthquake.  So they are
about 50 year old cranes which, by the way, are actually going to be
replaced here, as understand, within the next couple of seasons.

So, that would have certainly affected how those cabs could be
ventilated, because the older they are, the less visibility.  Maybe have
to open some windows, make the ventilation system, or the
air-conditioning system, what-have-you, wasn’t working properly.  So
those are all concerns.

And lead, of course, to if you're an operator hanging 70-80 feet above
the deck, you need to have outward visibility in order to hook up the
cans so it did requires sometimes opening windows in order to see things
more.

So, complaint items -- this is directly from the complaint, the injured
crane operators exposed to stacked gas emissions from vessel generators
during marine cargo movements.  The exposure to products and combustion
from basically from bunker oil.  Whatever those particular vessels were
burning as the use of a fuel product.

The employer did provide the STS's.  I'll get to that, as well.  But the
employer actually did have a stacked gas emission policy.  So there were
previous knowledge from other terminals, particularly down in the
Seattle-Tacoma area.  So, there is your knowledge right there.  They
knew that this was occurring.  But again, the way the vessel is oriented
and also in addition to cooperation with the vessel master, that was a
key here as well.

So, there were previous injuries and illnesses reported in January 2013,
June 2013 and February 2014.  Basically, got this information by
reviewing the injury and illness reports; i.e., the OSHA 300 form. 
Crane operators had complained of stinging in the eyes, ringing of the
ears, odors, headaches, dizziness, and nausea.

There were recommendations out there to use short power for necessary
equipment onboard the vessel.  But again, that wasn't available down
there at the Port Anchorage.

So, the greater potential for exposure was when the vessel was all fast
to its port side, and of course, the prevailing wind from the north,
because that basically meant that the stacks were to the right of the
crane operators, and most of the hatches that would be at work were
forward of the house.

And so, what would happen is that the operators would be directly in
line, if that north wind was blowing and when they were swinging out
over the vessel, that any type of gas and odors would come in in that
manner.  And of course, more complaints as you get close to the hatch. 
And that was being worked at the time.

So, reviewing the SDS for the number 6 fuel oil that was provided by the
employer, you know, basic products of combustion was one thing I was
looking at.  That was part of the same strategy.  And the corporate
stack gas protocol noted the move to low sulfur fuels to meet
environment compliance.  And that, the protocols outlined to the crane
operators.

What they were to do in the event for or any potential exposure, because
the employer was really trying to do what it could in order to minimize
the exposure.  If employees did feel dizzy, if they were lightheaded or
any other signs or symptoms, they were basically instructed to
immediately seize operations.  And they've shut down operations for
hours on end until they can alleviate the problem.

And when you do that at the Port Anchorage, 80 to 90 percent of the
goods that come into Alaska come into south central Alaska.  And people
have to get – people need their stuff.  And it's really hard and it
that costs a lot both on the employer side and also you have a lot of
island workers there that are getting paid at the same time.  So there
is the economic drivers behind it to get this cargo off.

These particular vessels spend about 20 to 24 hours in port, due to the
type of operation that they perform.  The Port Anchorage is a pretty
dynamic port in the sense that you're going through four tidal changes,
three to four tidal changes of generally 30 to 35 feet at a whack.  So
that's a lot of movement as you're trying to offload this cargo, as
well.

So, to determine the sampling methodology using both real time, single
gas instruments, active sampling, meaning sampling of the crane –
sampling in the crane operators breathing zone.  Contaminants I did
sample for included carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, sulfur dioxide,
and oxides and nitrogen.  Basically, we're looking at those products
(unintelligible) from the stack gas.

There were two sampling days, two different vessels.  The operator shift
-- this makes it a challenge, as well, because the operators are
generally on for two-and-a-half hours and offsite for four.  So, it's --
and that was their shift.  And when -- then they would come back on
after their four-hour break, do another two-and-a-half hours.

Sometimes, we had -- I was able to perform some sampling on operators
that worked back to back, two-and-a-half hours shifts, which, you know,
aided in comparing exposure results and such.  So, this was one of the
challenges of sampling in this type of situation.

So, here -- here are some sampling pumps.  But actually had to rig these
by going behind the operator himself in the operator chair because there
just wasn't any room to place it on the operator.  So, it just made it
more feasible, allowed him to use both hands, so again, marine cargo
goods, we are not going to try to impede the work of some of the
intricacy of your hands 70-80 feet above the deck of a vessel, trying to
pull the cans out.

So, these pumps were dual pumps because the amount of sampling -- and
then routed to the breathing zone.  So here's a shot of this particular
sampling media in the breathing zone of the worker.

Direct read instruments -- these were more area samples than actually
direct breathing samples, just because there's only so much, again, that
I could have hung onsite of the operator himself.

So crane operations -- this, you know, assisted in limiting the exposure
to the -- for the worker.  Of course, here the vessel is all fast to
starboard.  You know, the stack is to the stern.  It does limit the
exposure to the worker when they're working in the forward hatch as the
other two cranes can illustrate.

At this point, we're moving behind the house.  So the stack is going to
be right -- to our right.

With that in mind, you know, this was -- like I said, it was winter
conditions, but it was actually a nice winter day.  But you can see
there's still ice in the inlet.  But, yeah, I had to block out the
employer, the actual vessel lines.  So we just commandeered the vessel
here.  But here we are, squeezing behind the house and the stacks.  And
that's Knik Arm which is attached to Cook Inlet, which is attached to
the Gulf of Alaska.

So, another shot.  This would be, I believe, a day, the second day of
sampling, another, a different vessel.  We were working their newest
crane which is thirty years old.  Again, the same type of sampling
strategy ration but it just gives you a perspective of where you’re
at.  I spent two days going back and forth on these cranes.  A unique
work environment but that’s –- that’s what it took in order to get
this –- put this complaint together.

	So actually the sample results from all methods, all alleged
contaminants were zero or none detected.  Results did yield that
cooperation with vessel master and shore side personnel to properly
orientate the vessel when tying it up can limit potential exposure.

	Another big thing is that –- that the tidal winds are so dynamic in
Anchorage, it just depends on how you can tie that vessel up when it
comes in, particularly getting it off fast to the starboard side to
limit this.  So we have a lot of pan ice in Port Anchorage.  And again,
the thirty to thirty-five foot tidal movements really, really affect
maneuverability in those types of conditions as well.

	Even though, you know, the employer realized – the employees were
almost – the longshore and crane operators were almost disappointed
that I didn’t get any results.  Well, I try to tell them that, you
know, this is great, you weren’t exposed.  And just to get that
understanding that because exposure meant that the employer was going to
do something about it.  But at the same time, the employer already
understood that it was a hazard and they were limiting the exposure and
providing as many administrative protocols as they could in order to
minimize the exposure.

	However, during the course of the inspection, since I was going up in
the crane, there is an area called the wash rack which the crane cab
fits into.  And it was basically an open-sided platform seventy feet
above the dock.  And I was wondering why no one had ever noted this. 
And so in the end, we discussed that. And the employer was cited for
this fall hazard. 

	And to show a picture of what I was talking about, you can see that big
open frame in the back, that is looking towards the terminal itself. 
But when you can access the crane cab itself, required the employees to
wait, you know, in the corner until the cab actually nested itself in
there.  And they were able to access the cab.  The alternative way of
getting to the crane cab was to come from –- climb the ladder coming
from above and climb down, which whether or not you like to climb
ladders, it is six and one-half dozen to the other which was the safer
route.  However, the other route you were totally protected when you
came down into the crane cab itself.

	So that’s all I have in regards to that.  I want to appreciate the
time but if -- again, open for questions.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you, Matthew.  Questions of the committee?

	Kevin, yes.

	MR. SMITH:  On your last photo where you showed that access point, how
was that abated, how did they correct that?

	MR. PAULI:  Sure.  There was -– they were able to extend the railing
back and create a platform in order to minimize that hazard, eliminating
it all together.	

	MR. SMITH:  But that opening still exists for the crane cab to back
into.

	MR. PAULI:  Well, you were able to actually –- they created a
platform out and back.

	MR. SMITH:  Okay.

	MR. PAULI:  So it can still nest itself in there.

	MR. SMITH:  All right.  Thank you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.  Other questions of Matthew by the
committee?

	(No audible response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Public, any questions of the public?  If you do so,
please raise your hand so I can recognize you.

	(No audible response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Let’s see -– I had one note, let me see what my
note says.  I was curious about your discussions of SDS and the
components of -- I guess it’s bunker six fuel oil.  So if you can
recall, I think the rules are -- still exist that if it’s one percent
by weight for any material or .1 percent by weight for carcinogens.  Is
that right too?

	MR. PAULI:  I believe so, yeah.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Yeah, yeah.  So do you recall the substances you
measured for, did they actually trip -– were they listed on the SDS?

	MR. PAULI:  No, it’s just knowledge on what, you know, a products
combustion.  And I just geared myself and did additional research on
what I can expect or might be available.  Not necessarily from the SDS,
but certainly from other research I did in regards to what the potential
products combustion would be.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  And the reason I ask the question, we
have gotten away from it but we -– we formerly burned bunker C fuel
for steam generation.  And we actually heat the plant with, you know,
steam generated heat and use bunker C.  And my experience with the SDS
on bunker C is those things didn’t show up kind of a thing.  So it was
a personal curiosity.

	MR. PAULI:  Sure, sure.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  Any other questions by the public then?

	(No audible response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Matthew, I want to thank you for coming all the
way.  Thank you, you may get the longest prize for the longest trip
maybe.

	MR. PAULI:  Well, it’s on the way so – 

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Wow, let’s see Tampa -– okay, I got it, yep.

	(Laughter) 

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you so much.  Now we have got a couple of
administrative items.  Nick, do you want to come up please.  Let’s go
off of the record –

	MS. LEVIN:  Before we go off the record I need to enter this in.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I’m so sorry, I forgot that, I’m so sorry.

	MS. LEVIN:  No problem.

 And I’m going to mark as Exhibit 6 and move into the record the Power
Point by Matthew Pauli on the Crane Operation Investigation.

(Exhibit 6 was accepted into the record)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Well, Nick come on up here and get settled, Nick. 
You need to go over to the microphone.  We are going to go –- we are
not off of the record yet.  I have got one more thing I want to say on
the record and then we will go off of the record.  Those of you on the
committee, while you’re at break, Vanessa was at work.  She has
emailed you the link to the temporary workers.  So that’s on your
computers or your email of record.  I would also, for those in the
audience, if you have your pencils I can give you this link so you can
go right to it.  I know that members of the committee will -– for
those that are traveling together can kind of share this link.  But the
link is   HYPERLINK "http://www.osha.gov/temp_workers" 
www.OSHA.gov/temp_workers .  Okay.  So you can access that and have a
look at the information on temporary workers.  

	So now Vanessa please –- yeah.  

	MS. HOLLOWAY:  We might want to revisit the temporary worker issue
because that’s what Solomon -- not what he was trying to say.  I will
turn it over to you, Solomon.

	MR. EGBE:  Basically the link that you sent may not be that relevant to
us as MACOSH members.  So it may be something that perhaps MACOSH will
want to review the technical –- the temporary employer issues related
to the maritime industry.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Sure.  Yeah.  And I think we agree -– I think the
shipyard has actually added that formally to their agenda list. And the
Longshore is free to do that but I think it, like we were talking about
in the presentation, probably makes sense for us to investigate and see
if there are recommendations we feel are appropriate.  So thank you,
Vanessa.

	All right.  Before I go off of the record, any formal –- I’m going
to put Nick –- we are going to go off of the record and put Nick on
here for details for tomorrow.  But before I do –- what’s that,
Nick?

	MR. CARR:  No, go ahead.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  Before I do, any -– do we need to do
anything before I go off of the record?  

	(No audible response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  So we are going to have Nick to give us the
details and after Nick, we are going to proceed to lunch, right?

	MS. LEVIN:  Yes.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  So we are off of the record. 

	(Whereupon, a lunch recess was taken)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  So let’s go back on the record.  It’s about
five after one.  Let the record show Jennifer wanted to make sure that
you know that she was back on time.  So, there you go, you’re covered.

	MS. LEVIN:  I appreciate that.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  You’re welcome.

		All right.  So let’s move into our afternoon program.  First up is
Steve Butler, Director of OSHA’s office of Maritime Enforcement.  And
he’s got an overview -– or an update from the Maritime Steering
Committee which did meet yesterday for a long period of time I’m told.
 

	So Steve, the floor is yours and you are queued up there so please –-

	MR. BUTLER:  Okay.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Yes.

	MR. BUTLER:  First I would like to thank the committee for giving me
the opportunity to speak to you and address you briefly.  

	And before I get into this, I probably should give you a little bit of
background for those of you who may not be aware we have a Maritime
Steering Committee.  We attend the MACOSH meetings and then we also try
to meet either during, before or after MACOSH while we are all
assembled.  Because we have representatives from all of our regions
except for region 8, they don’t have any significant Maritime
activity.  But the other 9 regions participating, they are here.  We
have reps also from OTI, so we have a rep from OTI here as well.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Could you –- I know you have probably given some
backdrop so are you describing the Maritime Steering Committee and what
it comprises and -–

	MR. BUTLER:  Yeah, just so they have some idea who these people are.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Very good.  Perfect.

	MR. BUTLER:  So these are field representatives for the most.  We have
reps also from my office and from the Office of Maritime and
Agricultural Standards.  And when we are in DC, we also get
participation from the other directors.  But the primary focus is to and
purpose of the committee is to get input and guidance and identify the
needs of our field offices so we can address the issues that are of
concern to them.  A lot of it has to do with coordination and, you know,
one office may have an infected LAP and somebody else is trying to
develop one, so it is nice to get everybody together to exchange ideas. 
I will give you a brief example.  Some of the issues we talked about
yesterday, we got into -– this would be stuff that we got from our
field representatives.  We got into issues related to whistleblower,
temporary workers and it’s something that you guys have been talking
about a lot here as well.  Vessel access, emergency action plans,
national emphasis programs and local emphasis programs.

	We also talked a little bit about the certification of barges as it
relates to the part 1919 certification activities.  And then once we got
through all of that stuff, we got into our maritime training a little
bit since our OTI rep was here.  Talking about the shipyard course and
the longshoring-marine terminal course, those courses are currently
taught annually but we had a lot of discussions as to whether we should
–- because we teach each one –- we only teach one of the two courses
annually.  So each course only comes up every two years.  So we were
looking at do we want to increase the frequency of the courses, do we
want to put them back to back, what are the advantages of combining them
into one course as opposed to keeping them separate.  So these are the
sorts of things that we start kicking around and try to provide some
guidance to the agency as to, you know, what is going to work best for
the field offices.

	And so we had some pretty good discussion on our training stuff
yesterday.  And then we also got into a number of other issues that we
had on the agenda.  We talked about the shipyard PPE directive to
solicit comments from the field.  Do you want additions, deletions,
changes –- what do you want to do?

	You know, it’s a pretty intense directive and then we simplify it. 
So we are trying to get input from them to see what is going to work and
try to make that a little bit more effective.  We discussed the shipyard
fatality videos which we got an endorsement from MACOSH quite some time
ago but to date I don’t have the funding although I understand they
are divvying up the end of the year money even as we speak.  So I don't
know if we are going to be successful in getting part of that so we can
get started.

	We are trying to do twenty additional videos and I need about
$175,000.00 to do that.  I’m hoping to get the money, at least part of
it, so I can get it started so I can pass down how we do these things
efficiently to -- you know, to the next generation if you will.  So
because the other two people that used to help me were Deborah Gabriel
and Joe Dedura (phonetic).  And you know, we all know they both passed
on.  So I’m it and I’d like to pass that –- because there is a
little bit of knowledge that you have to have. And if you have done it
before it makes it a whole lot easier so I want to pass that down.  So
I’m trying to get that money.

	So we talked about the shipyard fatality videos.  We also discussed the
part 1919 program.  We have a directive – the cargo gear directive
that talks about how 1919 is applied in shipyards and, you know, and
also in parts 1917 and 1918.  But the second half of it also gets into
how we maintain the database for the electronic OSHA 71 and 72 forms
which we launched on January 1st, 2009.  So we got into a pretty good
discussion on that.  

	And then we followed that up with a discussion of an audit we just
performed on all of all of our shore-based floating and full function
agencies.  So we went out and actually audited one hundred percent of
the agencies.

	We did the big nine, they issued two out of the three forms and we did
them actually on site at their facilities and places of business.  And
the other 67 or 68 we did using the database and had them send us in
some stuff via Fed Ex.  Got them on the phone and with the database
online, talking to them on the phone, we did those audits in that
fashion for the other one-third of the OSHA 71.

	So we did a complete audit of that program, we ended up with putting
five companies on probation, three because they did not provide
documentation and/or didn’t have it, so they couldn’t complete the
audit.  So we put them on probation and if they can’t get that
resolved by the time their current accreditation ends then those will be
revoked.

	And we had two that were put on probation because they had issued 71 as
to floating cranes.  And all they had was shore-based accreditation so
that’s something you don’t want to do.  Because they are not
accredited to do that work.

	So we had five put on probation as a result and we will see if any of
those get revoked, they all potentially could be revoked.  So that’s
out of the population size of 78 I believe we have currently.

	We also briefly brought the committee up to date on where we are at in
renewing our memorandum of agreement with the Navy, MARAD and EPA for --
in this case, I think they call it ship disposal.  But those terms seem
to be synonymous or at least they are used synonymously.  They do have
different meanings.  Ship recycling versus ship breaking versus ship
disposable, et cetera. 

	We are busy doing that, it’s actually been negotiated.  Everyone has
signed it except MARAD, so we are waiting on the Maritime Administration
to sign that.  I’m assuming that’s why Kris Gilson isn’t here, she
is busy signing the MOA.

	But they are pretty busy right now.  So we are waiting for that to come
back.  And once we have that, then I plan on reissuing the NEP for ship
breaking.  So that will be reissued as soon as I have the updated –-
we actually have it ready to go.  We are just waiting for the signature.

	And that’s pretty much the long and the short of it.  It’s a good
committee.  And we also maintain a list of about 100 products that have
been developed by the agency.  If you turn the clock back to the year
2000 we had two maritime products.  We had the Shipyard Green Book, at
the time it was a green book -– or no, at the time it was a blue book
and longshoring was a green book.  Those have changed from, you know,
blue to green and green and blue, to brown and to all kinds of colors
over the years.  

	But at the time, we just had two of them.  Now we have over 100
products.  Some of those originated from the Maritime Steering Committee
and some originated from the individual correctorits (phonetic) and many
of those products originated out of MACOSH.  And so it’s been kind of
a group effort.  But it’s getting increasingly difficult to track all
of the maritime stuff that’s available now that we didn’t have
before.

	And then one last product that the Maritime Steering Committee put
together.  We took all of our little, you know, yellow and blue and pink
stick on notes and ripped out things out of our planners and pulled out
emails and we went through the standards and identified all of the
little things and all of the big things that needed to be fixed in the
standards.  Some of them might be technical amendments, technical
corrections and others might be something we can handle with the
standards of (unintelligible) project.  Others might need an actual new
rule making.  But we consolidated those into a document that the
committee called MASTER which was Maritime Accumulated Standards Tracker
for Enhancement Recommendations. And –- got to have a title.  So we
call it the MASTER document.  And that has since been turned over to
Amy’s shop and they keep it on an accessible public drive so we can
make comments to it.  We have identified approximately five hundred
items that need to be, you know, corrected and/or fixed at the
standards.  And that was something that came out of this particular
committee.  

	So having said that, if you have any questions?  I would be glad to --

	 CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you for the report.  So questions of Steve? 
Robert?

	MR. GODINEZ:  Yeah, Yeah, Steve.  You brought up that you were looking
into PPE for the shipyards and I just wanted to pointed a consideration.
 You know, we have got a -- the shipyard industry now is growing.  And
so we are having a lot of young people coming in.  And when you’re
young and you’re starting off as a trainee and your wages are pretty
low.  In San Diego, they are twelve bucks an hour.  And I mean, you
can’t raise a family at twelve bucks an hour in San Diego, let alone
buy steel-toed boots.  And so we are having guys actually losing their
jobs.  We got a guy this week that got terminated.  He bought three
pairs of boots in a six month period and, you know, he got a hole in it
and the safety guy came by and said there’s a hole.  He said this is
my third pair in six months.  Well, this is your last warning and he got
terminated.  

	But this is something that, you know, the guys don’t wear them to the
house.  You know, they just need them on the job.  Just some
consideration, maybe make them part of PPE, you know, guys don’t need
them at home.

	MR. BUTLER:  Yeah.

	MR. GODINEZ:  Yeah.

	MR. BUTLER:  Unfortunately I don’t have any control over -- I mean, I
have some input and I can give them my ideas but I really don’t have
any control over what we end up with as a standard.  That’s, as you
know, a public rule making process.

	MR. GODINEZ:  Yeah.

	MR. BUTLER:  But once that is all decided and I enforce it obviously
but, you know, that’s the sort of thing, you know, you have said it
here and Amy is the one you need to be talking to.  So she heard you. 
But I sympathize with you, it’s important.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	MR. BUTLER:  It’s a very important piece of safety equipment.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Don.

	MR. RAFFO:  Steve, I just want to reiterate to you what I said before
about, you know, as many of your compliance officers find some pattern
or something that needs to be addressed that this committee can help
with that, you know, we encourage you to communicate with us on the land
issues that we can help with.

	MR. BUTLER:  Okay.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I kind of want to piggy back on Don’s comment
because a couple of individual members have approached me off line and
reminded that it’s -- you know, the advisory committee, you know,
it’s a two-way street.  So if the agency sees opportunities that, you
know, that we, the committee, could help advise the steering committee,
or there are issues that you can’t seem to crack the nut on or would
like, you know, the experts’ opinion here, it might be a good
opportunity to just keep up in the loop and allow us to work with the
steering committee there and come up with solutions to the issues that
may be, in my words, stumping the steering committee.  So keep -- maybe
keep that in mind.

	MR. BUTLER:  Well, currently, you know, I mentioned that we are taking
comments on the PPE directive.  And there are a couple of documents that
you guys can comment on those directly if you would like and I welcome
that.  So if you want to see changes, if there is stuff there and you
say you don’t really all of those bullets, why don’t you just take
that that.  We are looking for that kind of stuff.  What is going to
make your life easier to manage and be more efficient?

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  So I guess back to Robert, if that is something
that you’re interested in talking about within your subcommittee,
maybe give it some discussion and see where you come out with.  Okay.

	I am empathetic of, you know, to a situation where someone can’t
afford to work.  I mean, that -- I know it sounds -- that sounds bad but
in the context of safety, okay, I hear you and I feel for that
individual, so.  Any other questions of the committee for Steve?  

	(No audible response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Hearing none.  Does the public have a question or
comment?  If you would, raise your hand.  

	(No audible response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Hearing none, Steve I want to thank you very much
for reporting to us the output there from the Maritime Steering
Committee.  And again, if there are issues that you would like to see
some help with, please call him.

	MR. BUTLER:  And I would like to thank you, Jim, for your support and
leadership in the committee and also I thank Kelly and Don for their
leadership during this current charter.  Thank you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you, Steve.  Thank you very much.

	All right.  So we have one of our own, Mr. Smith.  You’ll have met
him from time to time.  Ken is with the Coast Guard and he is also going
to give us an update on Maritime activities of the Coast Guard and the
IMO as well.  And the International Maritime Organization, IMO. I will
let -- I will let Ken talk about it but it sort of establishes
International -- International Maritime guidelines or principles as
applied to international transportation and that sort of thing.  So with
that, the floor is yours.  I guess you’re queued up so we’re good to
go.

	MR. SMITH:  Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.  It’s always kind of nice
we have these meetings in fall because it helps to prepare me for my
visit to London which will be happening in a couple of weeks.  So the
International Maritime Organization, what it is basically is a -- it’s
a function of the United Nations.  It’s a body of members that have
come together, Flag administrations and non-governmental organizations
to develop international standards.  Without any international standards
that the world can agree to, you would have ships pulling into ports
with standards from every different country so that’s not a really
workable solution.  So the International Maritime Organization was
created.

	I have been lucky enough to work with them for the last six years.  And
I don't know if I said thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished delegates
and members of the public.  It is an honor for me to speak to you.  And
I have been fortunate enough to represent the Coast Guard with this
committee for several years.  The Coast Guard has a valued relationship
with OSHA and the maritime industry.  Many of the things that we work on
overlap in many areas.  So it’s always been a pleasure to represent
the Coast Guard and to be a part of this committee.  

	I began working with IMO back in 2006.  Over the course of that time,
we have really done a lot of work.  I think the first couple of years I
was more of a member of working groups.  After that I was chairman of
working groups at IMO and chairman of correspondence groups.  I think
for me it’s been one of the most rewarding jobs that I have had with
the Coast Guard.  

	In that, it gave me an opportunity to meet people from many different
countries to come together as a group of people that have all been
focused on the same goal.  And that is to make the maritime world a
little bit more safer.  Over that time, we have developed several
amendments to SOLAS concerning securing of cargo.  We created a guidance
for safer working conditions for lashing of containers on deck.  We
amended a new code for the carriage of timber.  So all of those things
have an element of commonality with the MACOSH group.  So it’s been a
real pleasure working with them and you on many of those issues.

	My office is located in Washington, D.C.  We have four different
divisions that handle different topics.  Some of the things that I am
going to talk to you today about are not all of what we do.  They are
primarily the things that I have been focused on in my division.  We
also have a division that handles manning and credentialing issues which
takes on the TWIC program, medical monitoring and medical NVIC all of
that.  

	We have another division that deals in deep water ports.  We have an
environmental division that does a lot of work with ballast water and
ballast water monitoring and equipment.  My office is devoted to
standards for operations of vessels and facilities.  So a lot of the
work that we do -- some of the work we have been doing involves the
towing vessel rule making that’s coming out.  That’s been a long --
you know, has been a long time coming out so we have been working on
that.  We are also updating regulations for the off-shore industry.  We
call it subchapter N, which updates the regulations concerning
facilities and floating production units and vessels operating in the
Gulf of Mexico on the outer continental shelf.  

	In particular, some of the things that -- my discussion today is going
to focus on about six different things.  I want to tie them into some of
the work that we have been doing.  In the past, we have talked about
many of these items.  Primarily the LNG as a marine fuel.  And this is a
big one I think.  You know, we can all look back on -- in our life and
remember, you know, the changing technologies, right?

	So we had the beta and the VHS, we had floppy discs and that wasn’t
too long ago really when you think about it.  In in a similar way, we
see a movement to the greener emissions standards.  We have -- if you
look on Maritime history you have got the sailing ships gave way to the
steam ships, which gave way to the diesel ships which are now giving way
to another fuel known as LNG.  And so many people --

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Don’t forget nuclear, okay.

	MR. SMITH:  Don’t want to forget that.  But I think the way a lot of
it has been viewed is that there is a lot of uncertainty like there was
when diesel fuel first came into existence in the marine industry. 
There is a lot of uncertainty about it.  And I can see that in ten years
from now.  We will be looking back on the way it all started and
realize, you know, we have made it real safe and we want to make it as
safe as possible.  So in ten years, it won’t be as -- maybe as big as
a thing as what we see it to be today.  

	So LNG as a marine fuel is one item I want to talk about, I want to
talk about our commercial diving regulatory project, our cargo securing
manual regulatory project.  And IMO, I want to speak a little bit about
cargo safe access plan, verification of container weights and an item
that we are dealing with right now on global ACEP database.

	So LNG fueled vessels is LNG fuel for vessels has been around for about
twenty years.  It’s mostly been in Norway.  They really led the way in
development of LNG fueling and operation.  So they have -- they play
significant roles in the international community concerning development
of a code for gas-fueled ships.  And in other standards development
related to LNG fuel.  DNV, Diagnostic Veritas and classification society
has done a lot of work in that area.  They have been very -- very
helpful in developing international guidance and standards.  

	So Harvey Gulf Energy, International U.S. based corporation has
obligated to build six U.S. off-shore supply vessels.  And the Harvey
Energy was first -- it’s the first powering LNG vessel to operate in
the United States.  She became operational in February of this year
working out of the Port of Fourchon in the town of Louisiana.  

	Down below, lower -- on the lower bottom you see TOTE which stands for
Totem Ocean Trailer Express.  Tote launched its first ship -- first of
two ships that are going to be 3100 TU container ships.  The first
vessel was called the Isla Bella which you see on the rails there.  The
second vessel was launched this past Saturday at NASSCO in San Diego. 
She is going to be called the Perla del Caribe.  Both of those ships are
planning to operate out of Jacksonville, Florida.  The lower right
corner shows a better depiction of what the whole vessel looks like. 
The LNG fuel tanks are located in the back.  They are those green tanks
that you see underneath the back side on the stern.  And it’s going to
work from -- out of Jacksonville to supply the trade route from Puerto
Rico to San Juan to Jacksonville.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Hey, Ken, could I ask one quick question that would
help me at least to clarify.  So I know in the past we have had -- we
have had LNG transporters -- that transport, you know, the purpose of
transporting LNG as a --

	MR. SMITH:  Cargo.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  As a cargo, okay.  Are these vessels -- I know we
are talking about them operating from LNG but will they carry alternate
cargo,  you know, are they designed to be LNG transporters that operate
off of the fuel that they are transporting or can they -- can they
operate off of LNG and carry other materials besides LNG?

	MR. SMITH:  You know, these vessels are actually what they call duel
fueled vessels.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.

	MR. SMITH:  These engines operate on LNG and they also operate on
diesel.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.

	MR. SMITH:  So technology, again advancing like my idea about floppy
discs and beta machines.  The engine technology today is really driven
to the point where these types of operations are now possible.  The
horsepower and the dynamics of these engines have allowed the industry
to move forward.  So this is something that is going to be -- like I
say, we are going to see this more and more in the future.  Engine
technology is getting better, greener and emissions are needed.  It’s
just the movement from where we are now to where we are going.  Right
now in the U.S. these are the first two classes of vessels that have
really gone to the full extent of construction.

	The Isla Bella will start operation later this year and the second
vessel who was just launched yesterday or Saturday will begin operation
someone in Early -- first quarter of 2016.

	Both TOTE and Harvey Gulf are in the process of building LNG facilities
to supply their vessels with LNG fuel.  So both of those projects are
moving forward pretty quickly.  Right now, Harvey Gulf is using LNG tank
trucks to do their LNG fuel supply.  

	So here we have a picture of the supply options that are currently in
use.  Up in the left corner there in the middle of the page you see that
truck is bunkering a LNG fueling vessel.  That’s in Norway, an image
taken from Norway.  In the middle there is the proposed Port Fourchon
Harvey Gulf LNG fuel facility which is possibly going to be completed
sometime later this month.  And then some other images of some bunker
barges that have been proposed.

	So in the case of TOTE, TOTE plans to LNG fuel at their Long Island
facility at a later time.  But right now they are using the tank trucks
but at a later time they intend to have bunker barges that will pull up
alongside and bunker while the vessel is engaging in cargo operations.

	So we currently don’t have regulations specifically for LNG fueled
vessels.  When our regulations were written, they were geared for cargo
carriers, never envisioning the use of LNG as a fuel.  So we -- in the
meantime, we are moving forward with developing regulations based on
international standards.  We drafted or released four different policy
letters.  Two policy letters are based on the design and engineering of
LNG fuel systems, giving designers and engineers an opportunity to
understand what requirements they would be required to meet.  

	And we have two operational policy letters which speak to the personnel
training, operations of LNG fuel transfers and identifies existing
regulations that are still in play for LNG fuel transfers.  So we are
working with the U.S. industry, the international community and
standards organizations to –- and other government organizations to
LNG fueling regulations.

	Simultaneous operations is a function of doing two things at once
basically.  And the shipping industry has repeatedly said that they
would never be able to make ends meet if they weren’t able to do cargo
operations while they were taking on LNG as fuel.  This has been a big
concern for just about everybody in the world that is dealing with LNG
fuel.  Simultaneous operations are going to require that a safety and
risk assessment be performed to identify hazards associated with the
operation before any simultaneous operations can take place.  A lot of
work has to be done identifying hazards and ways that those hazards can
be mitigated. 

	The Coast Guard is also working to -- working with the America’s
Alliance for Natural Gas, ANGA, who has proposed to have a joint
industry partnership with several leading LNG interested entities to
propose to develop tools for us to help us to evaluate these
simultaneous operations so that we are sure that we can cover everything
that we would need to cover when evaluating a proposal to do
simultaneous operations, some facts that I thought that would be
important for the Maritime Occupational Safety and Health Committee to
be aware of and the general public that works in the marine terminals
where at some point, sometime in the future you might need to be aware
of the hazards of LNG because there might be something that is near to
where you are working.

	So LNG is chilled to minus 260 degrees, it’s very cold.  On the right
and lower corner, if something that cold is spilled onto a deck that is
not properly protected with material that’s resistant to cryogenic
material it will cause the deck to fracture and break.  So it has a
significant effect on, you know, steel which makes up most of the ships
that we operate today.  

	LNG is not a toxin, if it is spilled on water -- in the center of the
page you see what actually happens to LNG when it’s ignited.  Unlike a
propane, you don’t have this immediate flash back of the fuel back to
the source causing some sort of an explosion.  LNG really only will
ignite or explode when it’s confined in a trapped space.  Like if your
gas water heater begins to leak, you know, you are in a confined space
basically -- if it finds an ignition source it will explode.  But in an
open water situation where if the vessel was to get struck and LNG was
to leak, there would be serious damage to the ship probably because of
the fuel’s effect on steel but it won’t burn back to the source. 
And that’s what we see in the middle of the picture there.  That was a
1980 study, back sands study and over the course of time there have been
a lot of different studies associated with liquefied natural gas.  Most
of these studies have been based on the need to develop modeling
programs for the characteristics of an LNG fire or flame or a vapor pool
spreading.  So these studies were done to help build and refine existing
models as the industry uses to determine flame spread or the plume
spread of an LNG spill.  

	So that’s -- I just wanted to bring that to your attention.  You
know, you folks are working on water front, I’m sure that your
emergency response and procedures documents should be updated when this
stuff becomes near the port area so you’re well aware of what things
you should do in the event that it is – that there is an incident.  I
just wanted to bring that out.  

	So we have a commercial diving proposal to go out to update our
regulations of dealing with commercial diving.  We published it in
February of this year and received about eighty-one public submissions
entailing over one-hundred-and-fifty comments from the industry and
organizations.  The purpose of this rule is to update our commercial
diving regulations.  We focus on the diving operations conducted in deep
water ports or deep water port safety zones or in connection with the
outer continental shelf activities and from any vessel that has a Coast
Guard certificate of inspection.

	These proposed rules I can tell you improve our regulations to reflect
current industry standards and they will also allow us -- or proposed to
allow us to utilize the service of third party personnel to help us
conduct oversight of our commercial diver training program.  In
addition, we intend to propose -- we propose to have the requirements
for training and qualification of commercial divers to establish sizes
of dive teams which are something that we don’t currently do.

	Cargo securing manuals, this -- let me just go back here this other
diving -- we recently, late last month we -- we issued a supplemental
notice of proposal rule-making to allow for additional comments of sixty
days for additional comments.  We have a couple of incorrect items that
were listed and we have opened it back up to allow the public to submit
comments.  So that is a new -- so this is still open for sixty more days
and the public is welcome to submit comments.

	Cargo securing manual, this is an item that we currently -- back in
1997 the Safety of Life at Sea convention SOLAS which details
international requirements for the Maritime industry.  Basically SOLAS
was -- the first convention of SOLAS was started shortly after the
Titanic sank in 1912 to ensure that certain international standards were
agreed to help prevent a casualty like that from happening again.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  What -- the acronym SOLAS, what does -- what does
that stand for?

	MR. SMITH:  The Safety of Life at Sea.  It’s called the SOLAS
convention.  In 1972 it was amended but it originates back in 1912 I
think or somewhere around there.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	MR. SMITH:  So this cargo secure manual, we have a policy document --
Guidance for Cargo Securing Manual Approvals which was drafted in 1997
and we are now just getting around to putting them -- regulations into
-- that policy into regulations and bringing into force.

	We -- it’s currently in clearance.  We propose to require that
vessels with 500 gross tons or more traveling on international voyages
carry cargo that have cargo securing manual.  It also authorizes
recognized class societies or other crul (phonetic) authorities to
review and approve cargo securing manuals on our behalf.  And it also
prescribes when and how the loss jettisoning of cargo at sea must be
reported.  Over the past years of several papers submitted to IMO about
incidents that have occurred when a sailboat would be traveling from one
point to another across the high seas and for some mysterious reason
they would just disappear and never be heard from again.  And the
reporting of lost containers is not something that’s required to be
done internationally or locally unless those containers are carrying
some sort of hazardous materials in which case they have to be reported.

	In this rule, we propose to require any vessel within U.S. waters to
report loss of any cargo over the side so we can get a better idea of
where that cargo may be headed.

	Cargo safe access plans this is something as of January 1st, 2015. 
This item was part of the amendments to the cargo stowage and security
code which back in 2010 created a new annex – annex 14 which outlined
the guidance for -- guidance on providing safe working conditions for
securing of containers on deck.  And associated with that was a
requirement that vessels that were built for carrying containers have a
cargo safe access plan.

	And among other things, it says that they must comply with chapter five
of the –- one of the MSE circulars.  And that circular requires
details be provided on hand rails, platforms, walkways, ladders, access
covers, location of equipment storage facilities, lighting fixtures,
container alignment on hatch covers, pedestals, fittings for specialized
containers and reefer plugs -- it really requires a lot information in
that the longshore industry thinks about when they go to – when they
go to board those vessels.

	On the right, some of the things that these –- the annex 14 has
helped to put into place beginning January 1st, 2015 vessels on
international voyages are going to be required to comply with these new
requirements.  And one of them is to – in the design and engineering
stage, to look at ships from the perspective of the people that are
going to work on it rather than the viewpoint of the owner who wants to
maximize a profit.  So a lot of work was done at IMO to gain consensus
because nothing proceeds forward without the entire body.  And really,
at that time it’s only Flag administrations, countries of the world
that get to vote.  Non-government organizations can have a say but they
don’t carry weight of a voting majority.  So unless we come to a
complete agreement, nothing can go forward.

	Some of the things that these changes bring about in that one picture
up at the top right – a platform that has hardly little working space
and, you know, no real fall prevention up above the rail.  The lower
picture shows you more of what these new requirements are going to bring
about.  So over the course of time you should see an improvement,
especially on new ships that are coming in to have more room for working
and more fall protection and general working conditions overall.

	Cargo safe access plans, as I was saying, you know, poor access and bad
design configurations and we should be leading to better access and
better design.  Some of the advice that annex 14 provides and I really
want to share this with you.  It says where there are lashing and
unlashing locations on board ship where no fall protection such as
adequate hand rails are provided and no other safe mechanism may be
found the container should not be lashed or unlashed unless the
situation should be reported to shore-side supervisor and the Master or
deck officer immediately.

	Another thing it says, if protective systems cannot be designed to
provide safe practice access and lashing work positions in all cargo
configurations, then cargo should not be stowed in that location.  And
finally, it says neither the crew nor shore workers should be subjected
to hazardous working conditions in the normal course of securing cargo. 

	So these -- this document is very important and it’s been -- I’ve
been talking about it for some time and I think that it’s important
that they understand that the many good things that it has to offer.

	Verification of container weight.  This was another topic that was
discussed at the IMO for several years.  Back in 2006 that a report was
generated that basically studied the effects of incorrect weights being
applied to ships in their stowing plans.  And so this requirement will
be implemented July 1st, 2016 which basically requires that any
container that’s loaded aboard ship must be verified as having a
container weight that has been certified either by weighing of the
container or by weighing the contents of the container.  

	The two pictures that you see to the right are of the same ship, MOL
Comfort which sank in the Indian Ocean a few years ago.  Drew a lot of
speculation on whether or not the vessel was improperly loaded based on
mis-declared containers.  

	In the United States, we don’t really see much of a problem with our
exporting containers.  The United States Government by way of OSHA and
our Federal Highways Administration and the Customs CEP have pretty good
regulations in place to prevent that from happening.  There should be
more done internationally and hopefully these new requirements that are
coming into effect will help to ensure that the containers are -- the
verification of weight is more accurate in the future.

	Global ACEP Database this is a new – it is something that has been
going on for a couple of years but we plan to finalize it at this
session.  I was the chairman of the correspondence group through the
intersessional period and will hold a working group in London to
finalize this product.  A few years back when some amendments were made,
there were requirements that the public -- that administrations publicly
conveyed the ACEP numbers of container programs that they authorize and
approve under their authority.  And so one of the proposals that came
forth from that was the Bureau of International des Containers, BIC.  An
organization working within the container industry had proposed that
they develop a centrally located database that administrations can use
to record information related to their container approval programs and
the personnel – the parties responsible for maintenance and ownership.
 This centralized location allows for Port Authorities and inspectors at
the ports to quickly identify contact information for personnel
associated with specific containers. 

	So that is the summary of some of the things that have been going on
with the Coast Guard requirements and IMO and I would be happy to answer
any questions.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  Any questions?

	(No audible response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you, Ken.  Any questions?  Kelly?

	MR. GARBER:  Just two things I want to talk about a little bit about,
Ken.

	On the LNG program, the simultaneous operations and the concern for
loading or fueling the ships alongside where we are doing cargo
operations.  Just to let you know that there has been quite a bit of
work done in the industry generally through the Harbor Safety Groups
with regard to current bunkering which is, you know, the bunker fuel
itself which barges alongside during cargo operations.  We have had some
instances in the past of container lashing gear landing on ships or on
the bunker barges and even containers landing on bunker barges.  So
there has been some work done in the industry and it would be worthwhile
for MO to tap into that a little bit.  

	And with regard to reporting lost containers, I would just caution that
the ships be able to report an estimated number of containers and not
hold them to some form of exact number of containers while they are on
their voyage.  I have worked several ships that have been through pretty
severe storms similar to what you depicted there with a whole bay of
containers and it’s many days into the operation before we are able to
get a determination of how many containers actually went overboard and
what is actually part of that mass of piles left on board of the ship. 
So those are the only two comments I have.  Thank you, Ken.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Tim.

	MR. PODUE:  Yeah, I’d like to make a comment on the weight
verification also.  On our export containers leaving, we do have good
regulations for our road and, you know, the containers come up from the
road but in the railway, the containers coming from the rail and I have
personally have loaded out containers that have said that they are 14.5
tons and they are really 29 tons.  So there is a problem in the
disconnect there between the rail and to the vessel.  So you are not
getting good weights coming off of the rail.  And you hear it all of the
time.

	MR. SMITH:  Thanks, Tim.  I appreciate that.  I will find out what we
can do to make that better.

	MR. PODUE:  Possibly get the terminal stacks to get a good weight of
the container when they hit the, you know, the dock.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thanks, Tim.  Other questions of the committee.

	MR. EGBE:  Yeah, I have questions for you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Solomon.

	MR. EGBE:  You mentioned the Norwegians have had the LNG ships
operating for a while.  Do they have simultaneous cargo operations --

	MR. SMITH:  No, they don’t.  They actually have – right now they
have – from what I recall, there has only been one operation where
they have done simultaneous operations and that was in Sweden.  The
Swedes who just built a very maybe last year may be in operation.  They
were the only ones that actually had done it.

	In Norway, what they usually have been doing most of their LNG fuel was
for fast ferries.  And so what they would do is the ferry would pull up
in the evening, you know, after the passengers were off and load from a
facility on shore.  More or less like a fuel pump really.  Which is all
computer integrated.  Nothing can begin until a computer recognizes that
all of the valves are in the right place.  So, no, Norway has not done
simultaneous operations.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Anything else Solomon?

	MR. EGBE:  That’s it.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.  Any other comments or questions from
the committee for Ken? 

	(No audible response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  The public, anyone have a question or
comment?  Yes, we have got one, two three -- so we will go from left to
right.  So from the left, come on up and sit down and identify yourself
if you would.  My left, oh wait, four, I missed -- okay.  You’re
first, you’re second, John you’re third, and fourth.  Okay.  Very
good.  Here we go.

	PARTICIPANT:  Thank you.  From a ship preparing standpoint from an LNG,
is there any type of special precautions that guys are looking into that
shipyards should be taking when having to do some sort of form of
repairs on an LNG vessel?

	MR. SMITH:  That’s a good question.  I don’t think that we have
really, really looked at it very well.  I think we have been relying
pretty heavily on the marine chemists.

	MR. RAFFO:  Right.  And we actually have a whole process -- a special
endorsement that the chemists get of special training dealing directly
with LNG so they are trained to do that inspection to certify top work. 
I don't know if we will see a lot of repairs on the fuel system in the
U.S. they may send them out of the country but we do have process and
procedures for those.

	PARTICIPANT:  Where can they be found?

	MR. RAFFO:  They are in a NFPA 306 standard. They list it and we
periodically provide training in different institutes.

	PARTICIPANT:  From a marine chemist standpoint, what are some of the
recommendations of the things you are telling the shipyard they should
be doing?  And I know there are not very many vessels at this time but
looking forward.

	MR. RAFFO:  Right.  And once again it depends on the repairs.  If the
repairs are on the fuel systems we have certain items we look for, you
know, that the tanks been basically gas free we will take readings in
there into barrier spaces.  There are sensors in there to check the
inter-barrier spaces.  Also we have different precautions depending on
where the repair is because, you know, the LNG may have the tanks in the
engine room but you may be doing a repair up in the wheel house.  And
then we are looking at what state is the vessel in.  Because in the
static stage, typically when they are not running the engine -- the
product is not pressurized so which means it vents to atmosphere, it’s
always boiling off in a sense.  So whether there is a safe zone around
the stack where it vents out taking readings.  So there is a lot of
variables for me to just say here is what you do.  It depends on where
the repairs are, what is going and whether it’s on the fuel system or
whether it’s on the ship, whether there’s fuel on board, fuel not on
board.

	PARTICIPANT:  Okay.  Thank you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  It does sound like though -- I appreciate your
point.  You know, I guess the short answer is call the marine chemist,
right?  But I think what the question may be is, you know, guidance is
to those that are working on, you know, the vessel.  Is there something
they should do preparatory and that kind of a thing so.

	MR. RAFFO:  There is a little bit of guidance in the NFAP document that
we follow, not a lot.  You know, in a sense you’re almost following
the OSHA regulations on the 1915 where you call in a marine chemist if
the vessel carried --

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Right.

	MR. RAFFO:  -- fuel.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Has carried previous cargo.

	MR. RAFFO:  Liquid cargo, it would be the same scenario.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Process.  Okay.  Thank you.  Number two.  Yes, sir.
 Standing up, right.  And if you don’t mind identifying yourself again
for the --

	MR. BENEVENTE:   Thank you.  Ray Benevente, IOW Southern California.

	I have two areas of interest for Ken.  And I guess the work, their
cargo access plan.  The safe working platform and the access.  Can you
clarify is that going to -- how is that going to work and what -- are
they regulations or is that something you’re looking forward to
because of the lashing practices in Southern, Cal.  The area there is
-– there is hardly any area to unlatch a vessel so I’m just
wondering how that would work?

	MR. SMITH:  Beginning 1 January, 2015 those documents that were related
to identifying the sizes of lashing platforms because we agreed to
increase the sizes of those lashing platforms beginning July -- or
January, 2015.  So any ship that’s guild after that time is required
to meet those international guideline for design of platforms and so on
and so forth.  So the documents actually came out in 2010.  In 2010 the
committee agreed that certain requirements that were listed would be
applicable upon publication or maybe a year later, I forget which one it
was.  But the other one dealing with the design of ships and ships --
where owners of ships were encouraged to modify their ships as much as
they could without undergoing major modifications or renovations.  So
that was the recommendation made in 2010.  2015 now, those ships are
going to be required to comply with the design requirement that are
listed in chapter five of that circular which outlines the minimum sizes
for platforms.  I think it’s one meter by six hundred millimeters is
the minimum size now for all platforms.

	MR. BENAVENTE:  So maybe I don’t understand.  Is that through the IMO
and is that the design of the vessel and – are they going to get any
blowback from the shippers because I know they don’t want to take up
too much space?

	MR. SMITH:  We already had that problem from our major ship building
countries like Denmark and Korea.  Back when we were deliberating these
topics, it was you know – it was obvious there were a lot of countries
that wanted to see these changes implemented and it was also obvious
that the big ship building countries didn’t want to give up the space.
 So they agreed to this five year sort of window when they could make
preparations to enact.  And we -- in the guidance document that we
created, we indicated that as far as practical all ships should make
modifications to the vessel if they could.  And then at the same time
they would be required to implement certain training requirements, some
operational requirements.  Things that didn’t involve major ship
cutting or modifications to the structures of the ships.  

	MR. BENAVENTE:  I like that part so I guess another thing I would like
to understand is how is that more -- how is that design change or the
recommendation -- how did it come about?  Were there injuries because
the platform that I’m speaking about you have a picture of it up
there.  You can hardly move and there is a very good chance you can fall
away because the railing swivels down.  So how was that brought about? 
Was that because of injuries or --

	MR. SMITH:  I’m sure it was.  I mean, early on back in 2006 I think
when I first started working on this topic and it took four years for it
to be finalized.  Some of you folks in the industry probably know Al
Lamonie (phonetic).  Al is a big proponent of safety.  He did a lot of
work with our working groups in the IMO.  Another man was Mike Compton
who worked for ICHCA.  He was the president of ICHCA and many of you
folks that are involved in safety committees understand that those
folks, they carried a lot of passion to the table and the meetings that
we had.

	So really it was their influence that carried the day with the support
of countries like the United States.  And so there was a great amount of
work done by those labor organizations.  Organizations like ICHCA with
the support of countries like the United States, the Russian Federation,
France and Germany.  Very strong countries that have a lot of -- carry a
lot of weight.  But, you know, we were being – we were being pushed
back by big ship building countries.  So at the end, we were able to
finalize this with the agreement that we have.  And so the
international, you know, these are requirements that are basically
incorporated by the Safety of Life at Sea Convention and other
instruments that countries that are signatory to the convention for safe
containers have agreed to implement.  

	MR. BENAVENTE:  And so we can look forward -- going forward from 2015
design of the vessels from this year up?

	MR. SMITH:  Yes.

	MR. BENAVENTE:  Okay.  So those changes are supposedly being made?

	MR. SMITH:  Right.

	MR. BENAVENTE:  Thank you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you very much.  John.

	MR. VOS:  John Vos, region 4 OSHA.  My question deals with the
liquefied natural gas fueled vessels.  We have done a little discussion
how safe the vessels are and so forth but are there any requirements
coming up for marine terminals that will be handling these vessels?
Additional fire protection, rescue training -- is that being discussed
in the future to take place?

	MR. SMITH:  Yeah.  Well, we have got some existing requirements for LNG
facilities.  And the way that the regulations are written right now, the
regs are applicable to locations where LNG is transferred to and from a
vessel.  So we have the existing authority outlined in our regulations
for cargo terminals.  But LNG is such of a smaller scale, some of the
requirements that we have outlined for large cargo import/export
terminals are not really appropriate.  You are dealing with let’s say
a small – the image that I showed for the Harvey Gulf Facility is
about 3,000 cubic meters of LNG in tanks.  

	On another, you know, another import/export vessel, that is 265,000
cubic meters of LNG that they are carrying.  So there is a difference
between the large and small facilities.  But the baseline training
requirements are there.  Operations and emergency manuals are there. 
Our goal is to create a new part in our regulations to deal specifically
with LNG fuel facilities.  And so the way we would plan to do that is to
model that – model that section off of the existing requirements and
tone it down to meet to a scale that satisfies the intent of what it’s
going to be used for.  So training is part of that.

	MR. VOS:  Right.

	MR. SMITH:  And all of the personnel that are involved in that are
required to be trained.  Now like if we talk about an LNG trunk
bunkering to a vessel, we have to consider requirements that the
Department of Transportation places on truck drivers that carry
hazardous materials and other requirements that are basically associated
with the operation of that component.  We view that truck to be a
component of a regulated facility.  So that truck just can’t go to
Pier 54 and load up LNG.  That truck has to go to a regulated facility
that falls under the Coast Guard jurisdiction.  And it actually becomes
a component of that regulated area.  So that’s how we have been able
to maintain some authority over where that transfer takes place.  And
our jurisdiction for that vehicle to a certain extent really only
applies up to probably its transfer connections to the tank.  So we
would have some jurisdiction over that.

	MR. VOS:  Are most of these vessels being developed or built to --
container ships from containers?

	MR. SMITH:  No, not all of them.  We so far -- the two TOTE vessels are
think are only the first two container ships I know built United States
but I don’t even know if any other ones have been built anywhere. 
Carnival Cruises has placed an order for four passenger ships to be
fueled by LNG.  The off shore supply vessels there are six of them that
are going to be built.  We have had some proposals for towing vessels. 
And some -- the Staten Island and the Seattle Washington State Ferries
have also been looking at the LNG fueling as a possibility in this
areas.  But right now, the Harvey Gulf and TOTE vessel are the two
companies that actually have ships built.  But it’s going to change,
you know, there will be more.  In fact, I know there is at least one
recreational vessel that runs off of LNG.  So as I mentioned earlier,
this change that is going to take place, I don’t think it’s going to
be uncommon to see LNG offered at a local marina at some point in the
future for vessels that are running on liquefied natural gas.

	MR. VOS:  Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you, John.

	Paul?  We’ve got time for one more thing.

	MR. COMOLLI:  So with that comes all of the complications of safety and
other public safety concerns.  I’m Paul Comolli, OSHA’s Office of
Maritime Enforcement.  In light of today’s uptempo in security is IMO,
have they been discussing the security of these fuel tanks at the aft
end of these LNG ships?  For instance, a well-placed projectile or does
the nature of LNG negate that?

	MR. SMITH:  You know, I don't know if IMO has really focused on that to
the extent that you’re talking about security.  I don’t – but I
know that for passenger and crew safety it has been an issue that’s
been discussed.  The location of those tanks, you know, on board that
ship makes a big difference.  They place them in the aft end so the
cargo operations should take up front, the fuel tanks are out of the
way.  On some of the off shore supply vessels, we in the United States
our design and engineering office has imposed additional requirements on
the locations of some of those tanks. 

	Not really from the standpoint of security.  And I don’t really know
what size ammunition would be required puncture those tanks.  They are
pretty substantially built.  I don’t think that you’re actually
looking at the skin of that vessel being in contact with LNG.  There is
another -- there is another series of structures before you get to where
the LNG is actually stored.

	MR. COMOLLI:  Okay.

	MR. SMITH:  So I don't know -- we work pretty closely with Sandia
National Labs.  And they do a lot of technical scientific research for
us.  They are currently in the process of studying the effects of
liquefied -- LPG.  They have done studies with LNG but we have seen now
-- now that the shell extraction has been producing different types of
gas, LPG is another commodity that the industry sees as a good export
product.  So there has been more interest conveyed about greater LPG
facilities.  And so we needed them to take a look at that.  And they
study stuff like that, you know.  They can tell us what the result would
be of different size blasts.  So I can take that back Paul and, you
know, we talk frequently.

	MR. COMOLLI:  Sure.

	MR. SMITH:  So I will be able to get some information back to you.

	MR. COMOLLI:  That’s great.  The thought came up real quick that with
the Navy a number of years ago for a short period of time, put a 500
gallon gasoline tank on the main deck of their tankers or oilers.  And
the first thing the safety folks thought of, myself included, was that
you might as well just paint a bulls-eye on the side of that thing.  You
know, as far as security is concerned.  So now this is LNG so perhaps
the nature of it is not as -- certainly it’s not as, you know,
dangerous as the gasoline product.

	MR. SMITH:  Yeah, we -- several years ago when, you know, the Energy
Information Administration, the EIA had projected -- before the concepts
of shell gas was really out there.  The country was going to be short of
LNG supply.  So many of the industry leaders BP, Shell, Chevron --
everybody decided to look into creating LNG fuel facilities on shore,
LNG import terminals.

	MR. COMOLLI:  Okay.

	MR. SMITH:  And so one of the things that Sandia had actually studied
was the -- and they used the Cole, attack on the ship Cole -- the Navy
Ship as a baseline for determining, you know, what the impact would be
on a large LNG carrier coming in.  And so based on the work that they
did, they were able to tell, you know, what we needed to know.  And we
implemented security procedures.  But this is an interesting question
and I really would like to have Sandia have a professional, you know,
reply to that to me.

	MR. COMOLLI:  Oh, good.

	MR. SMITH:  It’s a good one.

	MR. COMOLLI:  Great.

	MR. SMITH:  And as you can see, you can see those tanks.

	MR. COMOLLI:  Right.  From your pictures, right.  Exactly.

	MR. SMITH:  So how hard would it be to shoot at it.

	MR. COMOLLI:  All right.  Thank you very much.

	MR. SMITH:  You’re welcome.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.  Any more from the committee?

	MR. PODUE:  Can I clarify one.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Yes, you can.

	MR. PODUE:  To qualify what I was saying about when I’m loading up
heavy containers for Canon -- an education for everybody here.

	As a crane operator, we are given a load platt (phonetic).  And so if I
have a can I’m loading up and I pull on it, I can actually feel the
tug on it -- how heavy the load might be.  So maybe I will look at the
manifest and see the weight.  And in some of the cranes but not all of
the cranes will have scales in them.  And that’s where I have noticed
the difference in the weights which is quite surprising at times.  And
something that we should know here is that 1918 doesn’t -- you don’t
have to have scales in our cranes loading the ships.  So I was just
trying to put that out there.  It might be a future project here for
MACOSH or maybe another means of addressing or mitigating an overweight
container.

	MR. SMITH:  I think it would be great.  I mean, right now, you know, we
rely pretty heavily on OSHA’s requirements for weighing of containers.
 And so this concept that there’s this portion on a marine terminal
where the containers aren’t really being weighed accurately is
something I think should be looked at.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Perhaps we should think about adding it to the
agenda as we go forward.

	Any other questions?  

	(No audible response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you, Jennifer.  And I want to thank you Ken
for your presentation and also your service.

	MR. SMITH:  You’re welcome. Thank you very much.

	MS. LEVIN:  We’re going to mark and enter into the record the Power
Point presented by Ken Smith as Exhibit 7.

	(Exhibit 7 was entered into the record)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.  We are going to take a fifteen minute
break.  We will reconvene at 2:30.  I would like Don and Kelly to get
queued up and ready to go please.  Thank you.  We will be back at 2:30.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken)

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  So here’s let’s do -- we have a
couple of things.  We have the work group report out so the first one is
going to be longshore followed by Don and the shipyard work group.  And
then we have some closing things we want to do at the end there.  So
with no further ado, Kelly Garber, you’ve got the floor.

	MR. GARBER:  Thank you Chairman and fellow committee members.  Ladies
and gentleman, I take this opportunity to update everyone on the
progress made by the Longshore work group since our last meeting.  We
conducted five conference calls and during that time we were working on
the development of our Porter safe lifting techniques quick card.  Which
is a byproduct of the cruise ship terminal safety fact sheet that we
previously submitted for publication.  We have also worked on our
research into the lashing injuries and a lashing document that we are
going to talk about further as well as injury statistics.  And research
into mechanic injuries is another document to produce and we will talk a
little bit in my presentation.

	Porter safe lifting and baggage handling techniques quick card as I
mentioned was a follow-up to the cruise ship terminal safety fact sheet
that we had previously produced.  This has been a working model for the
Longshore work group to create guidance documents that are focused on
the employer and follow those up with the quick card more focused toward
the employee.  And we have heard from our committee members today, a
fair amount of discussion around the quick card and its continued use as
this type of took to address the Longshore working -- Longshore worker.

	I would like to emphasize for the benefit of the committees here and
for the agency that we genuinely need to keep this type of device in
place.  Whether it’s the quick card or another format, we need the
opportunity and the availability to address the worker directly with
regard to safety.  Employers are challenged with this need.  We talked
earlier today about temporary workers and the fact that they don’t
necessarily show up on our jobs in time for us to go through really
thoroughly train that would be to their benefit.  And having some form
of methodology that will assist us in getting in the right types of
behaviors, the right types of performance and the right types of safety
awareness in front of those workers is invaluable.	

And I just think that if we walk away from that opportunity, we are
short changing ourselves and we are short changing the industry.  So
please give that some consideration if you will, keeping our ability to
address the actual worker through the products that we develop.

You will notice on this particular quick card we have put in some
graphics.  And what we wanted to do here was to address the actual
movement and lifting and ergonomics of handling baggage in the container
-- or excuse me, in the cruise line industry.  We have a number of
injuries relative to sprains and strains from picking up baggage and
moving it.

	And so we went through quite a bit of effort to find material and
information that was specific to ergonomics and proper lifting
techniques and that is what we have provided here.  And we hope to see
this document and publication fairly soon and out to the work force.

	Our next document that we have in mind to be developed and we have done
some preliminary work on is container lashing safety.  We have had some
discussion about lashing today.  Ken did a great presentation and
actually had some better photographs than I do of lashing situations. 
But before we get into the meat of our particular document, I want to
talk a little bit about what lashing really is all about.  It is one of
the most strenuous and physically argues jobs that the Longshore
industry is faced with today.

	The bars that are used and what I have tried to show here in this graph
is the components that are used to secure containers.  So if you look at
the large photo on the left you see a bay of containers on board a ship
with metal rods that extend from the deck up to the what are called the
corner castings of the container itself.  The other end of the rod is
fitted in a means that allows it to be attached to a turn buckle which
is then attached to either the deck of the ship or to a lashing bridge. 
And that turn buckle is then tensioned by being manually turned. 
Usually what we call a turning bar which is nothing more than a piece of
rebar really that is used to get leverage on the turn buckle and rotated
to tighten it down.

	So all of this work is manual and the bars go anywhere from a single
height in other words they are going in that picture from a lashing
bridge to the bottom of the container.  Let’s just take the blue
container, there is a rod to the bottom of the container sitting on top
of that.  But those rods go as much as three containers high.  And I’m
venturing to guess that they are somewhere around sixty pounds when they
are that three high bar.

	Between each of the containers on all four corners are interlocking
devices or inner box connectors, IBC.  The one in the upper right in the
picture depicts a semi-automatic IBC.  In other words, the container --
the IBC is placed into the bottom of a container and when it is lifted
aboard the ship and placed on top of another container, it automatically
locks to that container.  However, before we can hoist that container
off of the ship at the next port and discharge it that container -- that
IBC has to be unlocked.  And that is done with a long pole generally
made of aluminum that has a hook type device on the end that will grab
that yellow knob and then the lasher has to pull or twist to pull that
yellow knob out that is attached to a metal cord that actually turns the
– the locking device and locks it open so we can lift the container
off of the ship.  That in itself is a fairly challenging operation. 
Imagine reaching a pole up fifty feet in the dark, in the rain and
hooking onto that little knob which is probably the size of my thumb and
pulling that to release that.  And doing that multiple times across the
bay of the ship to delock all of those containers.

	In the lower right-hand corner the picture is a fully automatic -- or
excuse me, a manual twist lock that would be used at deck level.  The
bottom of that would be placed on the hatch cover or on the corner
casting device because it’s cast into the deck or into the ship
really.  And then once the container is landed, someone must come along
and manually turn that little lever on the bottom.  Either kicking it
with their boot or hitting it with their turning bar unlocking that
down.  So the process of securing containers and ultimately releasing
all of this lashing and unlocking all of these is arduous work and it is
something that has resulted in a fair number of injuries in our injury
-- in our industry.

	This gives you the depiction of kind of what the environment is like. 
Not all of the containers are lashed from the deck level.  In the
photograph is a hatch cover which is essentially the deck at this point.
 It is the cover the over the below deck hold which has containers in it
as well.

	Containers have been landed on those hatch covers and they continue to
be stacked up.  In this particular arrangement we have a lashing bridge
which is that elevated platform that you see.  And the lashing is
actually attached to that.  So we are lashing containers at the second
and third level in this depiction.  If the containers were continued to
be stacked higher which most likely they, we are seeing containers
stacked seven and eight high in today’s world.  Then the lashing
continues up some degree probably to three high.

	But you can see the area that the worker is in.  If you look closely,
there is actually a lasher standing on the upper right-hand side in
front of the red box below the gray one.  And so the environment that he
is working in is fairly narrow.  Frequently there is a lot of gear
strewn about on there.  Their lashing rods are laid down on those cat
box when they are de-lashed.  So we have some tripping hazards up there.

	Where we have refrigerated containers stored on deck, there are cords
to power the refri (phonetic) units.  And so those become gathered on
the deck as well and present an obstruction.

	We lash at all hours, we lash in all weather conditions.  So it can be
extraordinarily challenging. If you picture two stacks of those
containers with about eight feet in between them and those stacks are
fifty to sixty feet high at night it is very difficult to get lighting
down between those canyons.  So the lashers are finding themselves in
restricted areas with limited lighting and a lot of challenges to work
safely.

	We looked at our injury statistics over basically a four year period
from 2010 to 2014.  And during that time, in the lashing category we
recorded 621 reportable injuries.  So of those, 531 were time loss
injuries and that’s about 85 percent of the injuries being time loss. 
Which to me, is a substantial number when you start thinking about
injuries becoming time loss.  With the average time loss days being
70.1.  

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  One question, for this purpose are recordable and
reportable synonymous?

	MR. GARBER:  Yes, sir.  They are.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	MR. GARBER:  Yeah.  Recordable is probably the correct term.  You
caught me with a typo there.  You passed the test.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you, sir.

	MR. GARBER:  You’re welcome.

	In our endeavors to understand what we were facing here, we looked into
the category of injuries types that were -- make up these total numbers.
 We found that twenty-five percent of them were strain and sprain. 
Twenty-two were struck by and we will talk a little bit more about that.
 And of course the ever popular slip, trip and fall came in at twelve
percent.  I don't know if there’s a line of work anywhere that anybody
is dealing with from the safety world that doesn’t include slip, trip
and fall as part of their stats.  It’s probably one of our most
frequent across the board injuries that we have to deal with.

	Under the struck by, we have instances where lashers have been struck
by a bar that they were handling, they have been struck by a bar that
was dropped or that their partner lost control of and either dropped or
pivoted and hit them.  If you look and see where he is working that turn
buckle, that is at a pivot point on the deck.  So he picks that turn
buckle up and fits the rod into the end of it and then starts
tightening. If he drops that turn buckle right now, it lands on his
foot.  All right.  Now he is wearing a steel toed shoe but if it is up
on his arch it’s going to hurt his foot one way or other.

	We have had instances where those turn buckles have fallen and hit
people in the hand, hit them in the wrist and thing of that nature.  We
have had lashers hit by the interlocking cones that we talk about, IBC
or which are also called cones or twist locks, having them fall from
containers and hit lashers.  And unfortunately we have had some fatality
instances where lashers are actually struck by a container that was
being loaded to the deck and they are swept off of the deck or crushed
on deck by the container.  

	So struck by is a pretty wide field.  Anything from piercing your thumb
to a fatality occurs from a struck by.

	So one of the things that we thought of for a theme for our document
would be twenty-five ways lashers get hurt.  Now I’m not going to run
you through all twenty-five, I think we only got to twenty-three before
the pencil broke.  So we have five here and these are straight off of
the instant reports that were filed.  So we have a gentleman struck in
the face by a falling lashing rod.  What I said that weighed, about
sixty pounds?  That’s going to wake you up even with a hard hat on. 
If you get hit with that kind of a load, that’s going to get you and
it’s going to create an injury.

	I mentioned we have a lot of gear on deck and a lot of protrusions that
are on deck that are part of the structure of the vessel that the
lashers have to work on.  We have rolled ankle on loose gear as one of
our injuries here, struck on the head by a falling twist lock or that
inner box connecter.  And I’m guessing that’s probably about a
fifteen pound hunk of lead, not steel coming down on you.  A dropped
lashing rod that literally bounced off of the deck -- may have been
dropped intentionally.  Imagine a rod that’s thirty feet long and
weighs -- and you’re trying to lower it down.  At some point you’re
going to let it go or you are going to lose control of it.  It hits the
deck or the lashing bridge and bounces up and hits his partner.  And
then as I mentioned we had an incident where a partner had dropped a
turn buckle thinking he had clearance just to drop and let it fall on
deck.  His partner was in the way or moved in the way and got struck on
the wrist with it.

	So lots of opportunities, big metal pieces -- opportunities for
injuries.

	So we wanted to address these injuries, this is the product we are
starting with.  We are probably about twenty-five percent roughed out.
The outline was put together yesterday and we will continue working on
that product going forward.

	Our next topic will be mechanic safety.  And we have done a fair amount
of work this particular group has on mechanic safety.  We have done
several quick cards.  So they were short and sweet.  We are looking now
at maybe a more complex document, a little more intensive document in
covering mechanic work in marine terminal operations.

	When you think about a mechanic, if you are not involved with our
industry, you know, you think of somebody in a shop with a nice clean
floor and lighting and a nice shop atmosphere to work.  And we do have
that but it’s not the exclusive for us.  We have mechanics that are
working in the yard which is depicted by the worker in the photograph
there.  And I would suggest he’s working on a landing or possibly like
what Jen said it might be the under slug there, it’s not really clear
in the photograph.  But these folks are out in the yard in all weather,
in all conditions of traffic day and night.  We have workers who are
mechanics on aboard ship.  In most cases the work they are doing aboard
ship is dealing with refrigerated cargo units.  They are loaded on board
and continuing -- their operations are continues.  Ships get ready to
sail and all of a sudden the chief mate comes down to us and says I’ve
got a reefer on, you know, thirty-two on deck that’s not running.  And
it’s got seven containers stacked on top of it.  And twelve on the
inshore side and you’re looking at two hours to get it on and off the
ship.  And so we send a mechanic up and hope that he can fix it so that
we don’t have to take it off of the ship before the ship sails because
the captain chief and mate are not going to accept a refer that’s not
running and take liability for it.

	So a big challenge there for the mechanics to get in there and deal
with repairing them -- a reefer that isn’t running on board a ship. 
And we also have specialized mechanics who work on our cranes that are
either RTG, Rubber Tyred Gantry cranes that handle containers in the
yard.  They also work on the large ship to shore cranes.  Someone
mentioned earlier today, it was something like an eighty foot distance
from the crane cab up in Anchorage -- Tim, 150?

	MR. PODUE:  140.

	MR. GARBER:  140 or 150, so it’s way up there.  It’s a unique
environment for a mechanic to have to work on.  They do work on top of
the cranes even higher than the cab height that Tim depicts.  So a
challenging area to work, a lot to be done.  Jim’s not going up there,
right?  

	So a lot of opportunities for us to address this.  At this point I
don't know that we are going to have just one comprehensive document or
we may break this up.  We spent a fair amount of time yester, a couple
of hours just brain storming and basically putting together a rough
outline.  Again, probably about twenty-five percent outline of bullet
points and items to address in mechanic safety in marine terminal
operations.  So we are well on our way into those two projects.

	Part of our injuries in analysis shows that there were 958 recordable
injuries.  736 were time loss injuries.  And here is that strain, sprain
again.  In over half of the injuries incurred by mechanics and reported
by mechanics involved sprain and strain.  So a lot of lifting and a lot
of turning.  A great deal of repetitive motion.  You see we have 110
back injuries, 92 knee injuries.  Standing up, kneeling, moving around. 
Think back to that photograph we have of the mechanic in the yard in
that kneeled down position trying to get underneath the chassis.  And 65
shoulder injuries.  A lot of work is done lifting overhead.  A lot of
work done with heavy tools.  So we definitely have some work to be done
in the strain/sprain area.

	Second and in a distant second although was contusions and cuts and
abrasions.  Again, impact type injuries that you would anticipate with
-- to mechanic work.  If you have ever done any kind of mechanic work
yourself, if you ever had a wrench in your hand and you haven’t banged
a knuckle, you need to do it more often because you eventually will.  So
that was the mechanic project we’re working on.  We had previously
submitted to the agency for production the hot work safety in hollow or
enclosed structures in marine terminals.  The document came back to us
for a review session.  And we were asked to describe the photograph that
was on that document.  And we passed it around amongst the committee
members and we looked at each other and we said we don’t know what it
is.  Nobody could describe what it is.  So we would like at this time to
propose that we substitute this photo which is of a mechanic working on
the braces of a crane for that particular photograph.

	And I don't know if this is the right procedure or right audience, if
we need to make a motion.  I would ask your guidance James on that.  But
we would like to introduce a different photograph for that document.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Don?

	MR. RAFFO:  Just to clarify, are you proposing to put this photograph
in?

	MR. GARBER:  That is correct.

	MR. RAFFO:  That’s not a hollow structure.

	MR. GARBER:  The brace is.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Tim.

	MR. PODUE:  Yeah.  If we need a little more time, I can get you a
picture.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.

	MR. PODUE:  A proper picture of that.  But working on that same
operation that’s currently going on.

	MR. RAFFO:  I would just recommend that you try to get a picture of
something that appears clearly hallow.  That doesn’t -- to me, it
doesn’t look hallow.

	MR. GARBER:  Okay.

	MR. PODUE:  Yeah.  You know, and the other picture that was on there,
the previous picture was somebody working on top of a pipe next to the
water.  And it looked like somebody working next to the river, torching
on some pipe or something.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON: Okay.  As a matter of procedure --

	MR. PODUE:  If we have some time, I will get you a picture.

	MS. WANGDAHL:  So, I mean, we are fine with this.  So anytime you want
to give us the photo that would be the official permission for us to use
the photograph?

	MR. GARBER:  That’s fine.  We will do that.  So we will submit that
you when we have an opportunity to grab some photos and get a review on
it and get our consensus we will send it to you.  Very well.

	So in closing, I would like to propose a motion that we accept the
Porter Safe Lifting and Baggage Handling Techniques Quick Card.  And I
would like to recommend that for publication.

	MR. PODUE:  Second.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Well, the motion actually comes out May 8th so it
doesn’t formerly require the second but let the record show that if
there were a second, Tim Podue would have seconded it.  

	(Laughter)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  So now the motion has been made.  Now we have to
discuss it.  So discussion on the motion, comments to the motion,
corrections to the motion, additions and deletions to the motion by the
committee.

	(No audible response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Everybody know what they are voting on which is the
motion to accept the Porter Safe Lifting and Baggage Handling Techniques
Quick Card and recommended publication.

	MR. GARBER:  Yes. 

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All in favor signify by saying Aye.

	(Chorus of “Aye”) 

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All opposed, like sign?

	(No audible response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.  Motion carried.

	MR. GARBER:  Thank you, sir.

	At this time I would like to ask for a motion to accept the Longshore
work group report.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Motion accepted.  It doesn’t require second but
if it did I’m sure Tim Podue would.

	(Laughter)

	MR. GARBER:  Thanks for your support, Tim.

	MR. PODUE:  No worries.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  So any comments, corrections, additions, deletions
on the Longshore work group report?

	(No audible response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Hearing none, I will follow the question all in
favor of the motion signify by saying Aye.

	(Chorus of “Aye”.)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All opposed like sign.

	(No audible response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.  Motion carried.

	MR. GARBER:  All right.  If there are no questions from the committee
or the public -- 

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  Let me first ask does the committee
have questions of the -- either the quick card we already voted and
approved or the work group report?

	(No audible response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Any questions by the public?

	(No audible response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.  Your work is done, sir.

	MR. GARBER:  All right, ladies and gentleman.

	MS. LEVIN:  Marking as Exhibit 8 and entry into the record the
Longshore work group report Power Point presented by Kelly Garber.

	(Exhibit 8 was accepted into the record)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.  And we are going to -- and Don is
already queued up.  So we are very quickly –- so we are very quickly
move right on in to the Shipyard Work Group report, Don Raffo.

	MR. RAFFO:  Okay.  I’m ready to give my report, we are all set.

	Okay.  This is a report of the Shipyard Work Group.  We have had
several conference calls you can see up there four conference calls. We
actually did quite a bit during our time, during our last meeting.  We
decided to work on a few products.  One of them was the evaluation of
the shipyard competent person program that was brought up by one of our
members and I believe someone from the public.  And we decided to take
that on.  And we started initially -- actually using a document from the
Coast Guard as sort of our strawman.  The Coast Guard frequently enters
confined and enclosed spaces on board ships.  A lot of times they call
out a marine chemist to do their inspection of the confined spaces but
sometimes they call on a competent person.

	And the Coast Guard developed I believe, this is my opinion, this
program or this checklist because not to go into detail but typically
when they call a marine chemist, we have had fairly expensive training
before we got qualified the last several years.  Typical shipyard
competent person receives about twenty to twenty-four hours of training
before getting qualified.  So their level of training is not quite as
great but sometimes the Coast Guard relies on them to enter confined
spaces.  And I believe they found some problems in shipyard competent
person programs throughout the country.

	So they decided to develop a checklist before they allow a competent
person to check confined spaces for them.  So we took this -- we
expanded on it and came up with a checklist that is really directed to
employers so they can evaluate their shipyard competent person program
to see A, not only if it’s adequate and meets the basic regulations
but is it actually working.  Because our program had -- our checklist
has things that are required and also best practices on there.  So it is
fairly extensive.  It contains some items that are not on the Coast
Guard list but we think it’s a good checklist, a good item to use
during the evaluation of a shipyard competent person program.  

	That item was sent to the Longshore work group and they sent it back
with a couple of comments.  We incorporated all of their comments on
that.  And we did the same thing with the fire and rescue services. 
That came from I believe one of our members also about how does a
shipyard know that their fire and rescue services are adequate.  We once
again went through the regulations and best practices and came up with a
checklist that offers some ideas and guidance along with best practices.

	That also was sent on to the Longshore work group and they reviewed it
and they had a couple of comments and we accepted all of their comments
on that.  

	Finally a quick card, and this quick card came from a fact sheet that
we developed on safety aboard commercial fishing vessels on housekeeping
and sanitation practice, just basically a quick card of good practices
to keep the vessel clean and aid in safety.  Again, sent to the
Longshore work group and I don’t think we got any comments back on
that.

	Finally, we are fortunate to have a translator in our group.  And he
translated into Spanish -- this was actually a Longshore document
mechanics working in the yard quick card.  And it says Lockout/Tagout
and that is actually in process and has not been completed at this time.
  So we do have that ready.  We have submitted to the Longshore group
but like our group, we only have one person in the entire committee that
can understand if it is right or wrong so we generally go along with the
flow.  And once again I want to thank Robert for that because the one
comment that we have gotten back from the agency is that when they
review his translations it’s almost spot on.  There is very few
corrections or questions that they have and this is aided in getting
these documents through the whole process much quicker.  So thank you,
Robert.

	And finally we did review and comment on the Longshore work group
product on the porter safe lifting and bagging -- baggage handling
techniques.  So we did that.  

	I went over this already a little bit.  The initial goal was -- develop
assessment – self-assessment tool for employers.  It’s got
information on what tasks should be performed by the marine chemist or
the competent person.  And it includes OSHA requirements and a checklist
addressing training, equipment, record keeping, general knowledge and
essentially best practices.

	Similar thing with the fire and rescue.  It will help you evaluate the
capability and capacity of fire and rescue services to respond to and
extinguish fires and actually respond to rescue from shipyard
operations.  Again it includes OSHA requirements and a checklist
addressing establishment of response teams, medical requirements as well
as fire and rescue response.  I have talked about the safety aboard
commercial fishing vessels, the housekeeping sanitation practices.  As I
said it was a bared down version and just sort of a one page thing that
gives some best practices.

	This is where -- oh, I talked about the translation where we are those
documents with the checks have been translated by Robert.  And with the
exception of the mechanics working in the yard, they have all been sent
onto the agency and approved by MACOSH.  And those are the ones that are
-- we have five more to do as we go forward.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  So the ones on the screen, are those you deem
appropriate and necessary -- or appropriate for translation?

	MR. RAFFO:  Right.  They have already been -- all of these documents
have been accepted by the agency in English through MACOSH.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Right, right, right.

	MR. RAFFO:  And we have developed this list a while ago to go through
and do these.  Like I said, the ones with the check mark including the
mechanics in the yard which we helped to vote on today and get accepted
will be completed and sent on to the agency and we will keep moving on.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Is there any order to these or are they listed in
any -- 

	MR. RAFFO:  Basically I guess we are going Lockout/Tagout, person in
the water then probably to the right, to the left and the right again.

	So they are not listed in the order.  Robert is currently working on
the Lockout/Tagout plus document.  There are four others there, we’ll
-- if there is a need to reshuffle one more that feels more important.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  My comment is I would like to put a personal plug
in for person in the water, moving that up.  I think there is a lot of
need, there is a lot of need for that.

	MR. RAFFO:  Okay.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  That is just a comment.

	MR. RAFFO:  That’s fine.  And that sort of what -- he is partially
done with Lockout/Tagout and person in the water was going to be next
anyway so that will be fine.

	MS. WANGDAHL:  Can I just interject on behalf of the agency.  I want to
thank Robert, when he started these translations we had just recently
lost the one person that we had that was doing the translations.  We
have since got somebody but she is very overwhelmed.  So if it weren’t
for Robert, these probably wouldn’t be done by now so I just want to
say thank you very much for stepping up and helping us out that way.

	MR. GODINEZ:  Thank you.  Thank you for giving me the privilege. 

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  And he is very quick by the way.  He is very
thorough and quick.

	MR. RAFFO:  Yes.  Some of the new documents that were talked about is
we currently at our last meeting have been working on the agency asked
us to review the e-tools, the shipyard e-tools on the website that they
have and update them.  We have started on that, each committee member
was assigned a certain section to work on.  We went over a lot of it in
the work group yesterday.  Anyone that attended our work group saw that
it was a huge amount of work.  We probably reviewed five, six, seven
hundred pages of documents doing track changes, making summaries.  We
still have a little bit of work to do on that to finalize that e-tools
and bring it up and we are also I guess in a little discussion about
whether that will come out of the Shipyard Work Group solely or be sent
over to the Longshore work group to review.  I’m sure you will be
anxiously awaiting reviewing five or six hundred pages of our documents.

	So it was a challenge and anyone that sit in it yesterday saw that the
-- sort of the enormity of the task of getting that done.  But I’m
actually very personally proud of the work group and all of the work
that they put into to getting this done.  Because the first time I
looked at it and I only had one section, and everybody had one section
to review.  I looked at my section and I said you have got to be kidding
me.  And it was a lot of work.  So I think we did -- we have done a lot
on that.

	As you can see we are still working on it.  As I said before, the
Spanish translation of the Lockout/Tagout and person in the water quick
card and we have the other ones on the table.  And yesterday since we
are hoping to take quite a few items off of the table today we have
developed a few new things that we are talking about and are going to
start some action and pursuing.  We talked this morning about temporary
workers in the shipyard, working on some type of document for them or
for the employer to make sure they are trained to prevent injuries. 
Another member came up with almost a similar thing that the longshore
group was talking about on trying the prevention of muscular skeletal
injuries in the shipyard.  And then we came up with two -- these are a
little bit different because they are not strictly safety topics, sort
of a best practice topic.

	One is on what are the requirements for the shipyard document to strip
back paint four inches from doing hot work.  Although there is a lot of
and even in the big shipyards misunderstanding, misperception, wonder
how you do it.  I still get calls from other big shipyards, what do you
do, how do you do it?  So we are hoping to work on a little instruction
for that.  And the same thing for a -- I’m going to call it a hazard
assessment for paint exposure.  A lot of smaller venders come into
shipyards that are hired to work especially for the Navy.  And they
start taking paint samples because they want to know what’s in the
paint.  They get a lab report back and they don’t really know what it
means but they know if they see a number they go into lead controls or
(unintelligible) controls or things like that without knowing whether
they are really necessary or what they are doing.  So we are hoping to
come up with some sort of decision tree on that process also.  It’s a
little bit different outside of the safety aspect but it’s more of a
management practice on some certain rules and the regulations.  And they
still relate to workers’ safety.

	So that’s where we are in the work group.  So right now I am going to
try to combine this into one motion.  I would like a motion to accept
the Shipyard Work Group presentation and work items into the record.  

	I would like the following items that have been approved by the MACOSH
committee to be submitted to the agency for publication.  The evaluation
of shipyard competent person programs, fire and rescue services
document, safety aboard commercial fishing vessels; housekeeping and
sanitation practices and finally the Spanish translation of Mechanics
working in the yard quick card.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  Well, that was a motion so the committee
doesn’t require a second but I’m sure Tim Podue would second if it
were a second.

	(Laughter)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  So here we are.  So any discussion, comments,
corrections, additions, deletions to the motion which is acceptance of
the Shipyard Work Group presentation and the work items into the record
as presented by Don and on his slide?  

	(No audible response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Comments, questions, additions, deletions?

	MR. GARBER:  I –

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Yes.

	MR. GARBER:  I would like to just congratulate the Shipyard Work Group
for all of the work that they have done.  In particular, I think the
safety aboard commercial fishing vessels housekeeping and sanitation
practices.  For me as a Coast Guard guy and fishing vessel examiner, I
really think that is going to make a big difference and I wanted to
compliment you guys for that work.  Thank you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.  Any other comments on the motion?

	(No audible response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  I’m going to follow the question all
in favor of the motion signify Aye.

	(Chorus of “Aye.”)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Opposed like sign.

	(No audible response)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	MR. RAFFO:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

	Just take minute, I want to once again thank my work group for all of
the work they have done.  They really sort of stepped up to the plate
especially on our e-tool things.  So I want to thank everyone including
Karen and Kristine who are not here today and everyone else.  And I also
want to welcome Chelsea to our work group as his first meeting. 
Hopefully, we didn’t overwhelm him.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Very good.

	MR. RAFFO:  Thank you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you, Don. 

	MS. LEVIN:  I’m going to mark as Exhibit 9 and move into the record,
the Shipyard Work Group Report presented by Don Raffo.

	(Exhibit 9 was accepted into the record)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.  Thank you very much.  All right.  So
I’m going to ask Amy Wangdahl to -- we have been talking about, you
know, where we are in certain of our documents.  Several of our members
have said okay we have got this document in the que, what does that look
like.  We have got that one that we’re working on and so Amy has
prepared a couple of slides and is going to talk a little bit about the
status of the projects that are in progress right now.

	MS. WANGDAHL:  So we were asked in 2012 specifically by Tim if we could
provide an update on a regular basis to the committee.  And I think
it’s been quite some time since we have done that.  Where we are with
all of the guidance documents.  And you guys do so much work, sometimes
we just take them and start running with them and forget to let you know
where they are.

	So Kelly reminded us yesterday it’s been a while so I had Danielle
work on this while we were here.  So I broke it up by Longshoring and
Shipyard Work Group.  So these are all documents that were provided by
the specific work group that the agency has completed.  So when it says
in 2009, three completed documents.  Those are documents that the agency
has either posted or printed.

	So you can see since 2009, you have completed -- well, OSHA has taken
19 of your recommendations and posted or published them.  In 2013 is
where we really had a big push to start picking up some back log.  And
right now what we have left, the top line is the oldest.  But that is
also I think the biggest.  So what we did was just start working on the
low hanging fruit.  Getting some of those quick cards and fact sheets
completed.

	Right now recovery of person in the water, that is also a larger
document.  The longshore group developed it.  We had some shipyard and
general maritime in there but there was a lot of -- trying to mesh it
all together, formatting.  So that is now on clearance right now. 
It’s at the state where all of the regions review it and they provide
their comments so this is a document that some of our steering committee
worked on during the work group meetings previously.	

So break bulk will be next in line and then the log handling operations
which you guys saw again at the beginning of this charter.  So those are
the three oldest ones that we are working on.  And then what we will do
is we will go back and we will add the new products that you recommended
today.

So does anybody from longshoring have questions about this, about the --
we are okay?

	(No audible response)

	MS. WANGDAHL:  Okay.  The Shipyard Work Group -- the agency has
completed, published or posted twelve of their documents and this is
what is left open.  Many of these are from this particular membership or
charter.  The ships document, that is a large document and it’s been
with our solicitors for second level review for quite some time.  So
that’s sort of the longest that’s been in the holding pattern.

And the pedestal crane safety, that opened up some enforcement issues so
that has kind of been on hold for a little bit while we work on some
separate issues that -- should we publish this document the way it is
and start opening a can of worms.

And the rest are fairly current.  And then we will add the new documents
that were recommended today.  So just sort of a plug from my office
because we are one of the smallest offices in the director of statements
and guidance.  So we have published thirty documents since 2010.  Most
of those came from this committee.  

So in the past two years we have published and additional ten documents.
 Six of which were from agriculture -- I’m sorry, eleven documents. 
Six for agriculture and five for shipyard.  So it’s -- you guys make
us work and we have other documents that we are also trying to work on. 
So we are continuing to work on the backlog and get those completed as
soon as possible. 

Does anybody have any questions?  

(No audible response)

MS. WANGDAHL:  And I’m sorry the numbers that we show were completed
did not include all of the translations.  So those have been sort of,
not that we weren’t counting them, but those were sort of existing
documents that already came through.

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

Any questions for Amy on this from the committee?  

(No audible response)

CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Does anyone from the public have a question?  Yes,
come on up and identify yourself, please.

	MR. SWANSON:  Jerry Swanson, Pacific Maritime Association.  Again, I
want to commend Amy and her team for getting so much accomplished. 
Thank you.  And we are looking forward to those last documents to come
through.

	But my question really is this document going to be available to us?

	MS. WANGDAHL:  Yes.

	MR. SWANSON:  Can you email it out?

	MS. WANGDAHL:  Yes, it will be part of the docket.  And then -- so it
will be available.

	MR. SWANSON:  So how long will that be?

	MS. WANGDAHL:  Next week.

	MR. SWANSON:  Oh, okay.  That’s it.  Then thank you very much.  Thank
you, Amy.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Any other questions of Amy in this capacity?

	(No audible response)

	MS. LEVIN:  We will mark as Exhibit 10 and move into the record to be
included in the docket the document presented by Amy Wangdahl regarding
the status of guidance products.

	(Exhibit 10 was accepted into the record)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  All right.

	So we are kind of at the end of the agenda, the formal agenda but there
are a couple of other things that I kind of wanted to go over a little
bit to remind the committee and the public where we are. 

	So there are some -- we had some discussion about this in our work
groups yesterday.  And some of the public were involved in that and some
were not.  So just let me refresh where we are in terms of the charter
membership, etcetera.  So and if I get this wrong I’m sure either of
my friends here will correct me.

	So we are in the current charter of the current MACOSH charter which
expires April, 2017.  So April, 2017 and our charters run on two year
– so we were lucky this last time, we had no -- what throws everybody
off is normally we have about a six or nine month gap between charters. 
So in this case, we actually flowed through.  So we are actually into
the charter.  What’s confusing people is the membership in the charter
which normally are synched up, are slightly out of synch.  And so the
membership -- the current member roster runs through the end of the
year, January.

	So the agency has put out a request for nominations for membership that
closed a month ago – July.  So the agency has received those and are
in the process of reviewing those et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.  

	So we should have some word, those that applied et cetera, et cetera by
the end of the year.

	MS. LEVIN: Oh, yes.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Okay.  So they are working on that.  So the other
thing, so that is where we are logistically.  I think the challenge, I
like to kind of piggy-back on Don and Kelly’s presentation in terms of
the work groups.  So Kelly -- well this is awkward.  I have talked to
everybody off line on this and Kelly has not reapplied.  So he has got
some different commitments and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.  So I
want to publicly thank Kelly for his service.  He has done a fantastic
job.  We hate to see that you didn’t reapply but we respect your
decision on that.  And thank you for your service and I can’t thank
you enough.  I thank you and the other chairs and the members just made
my job very easy.  So I wanted to publicly thank you for that.  

	The other thing that I would like to mention at this time as I
understand Tim Podue has not reapplied.  I love you, man.  I love you
like a brother.

	MR. PODUE:  I love you too.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  And so we are going to miss him.  I found him to be
the voice of reason, I have found him to be very approachable.  He is a
gentleman and I want to publicly thank you for your service as well.  

	And then finally Ken Smith.  I understand Ken directly from him, he has
not applied.  A true gentleman.  He is the oil on the water, he’s
always calm, he’s always collected and I respect him greatly for what
he does.  And I want to publicly thank you for your support, not only as
a member but as a former chair -- work group chair, et cetera, et
cetera.  

	So I wish you would join me in giving all of these three retired
members a hand.

	(Applause)

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Now I want you to know that but we are going to do
something, we will figure that out.  But people don’t realize, Kelly
and I were talking last night.  And, you know, if you want something
good done, ask the busiest person around to do it.  If you think about
it, it’s true.  And these are guys are very, very busy people.  As an
example, and maybe I shouldn’t tell this, but we have had conference
calls where Tim is up in the cab -- so my point is -– and we are all
very busy people.  And these three guys and all of you are very busy
people.  So I really appreciate the personal sacrifices.  Tim lives out
on the west coast (unintelligible) out there and so we are all traveling
and that sort of thing.  So I really want to thank you for all of your
service there.

	The other thing I always do customarily is I like to have some closing
comments. Now generally I go around the table here from the committee. 
And I’m not sure which side to start. I’m going to start with the
ladies first.  So Amy, I would like to have some – anything you want
to say about the meeting today, MACOSH in general.  Open mic kind of a
thing, any thoughts that you have.

	MS. SLY:  Thank you very much.  It has been a real privilege to be able
to be a part of this group and to work with everyone.  I really
appreciate all of the presentations that are given at the meeting. 
It’s wonderful information for me to be able to take back and give to
the industry.  So it has just been wonderful.  Thank you and I hope to
continue to work with everyone in the future.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you very much.

	MR. PODUE:  Well, it’s been a pleasure and a privilege serving on
this committee.  We do a lot of important work here.  I’m glad to hear
that the charter is going to keep going and I hope it keeps going in the
future.  I would like to thank the agency for allowing myself and our
organization to participate it is so important that we have this type of
relationship where we can all try and understand each other’s needs. 
And I would like to thank the agency.  And I would like to thank all of
the folks that I have been working with over the past seven years now. 
You guys -- it’s been great.  It’s been a learning experience for
myself, a growing experience.  And I really appreciate the chance to do
that here.  And last of all, I would like to thank the staff because
without the staff, there is not much you can get done.  Vanessa and
Nick, I would like to thank you guys for helping us with these last
charters.  Without you, we wouldn’t get anything accomplished and
anyway, thank you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.  Antonio.

	MR. RIOS:  Yes.  Well, it’s been great to work with you guys for the
last couple of days.  This is the first time where I have actually been
in one of these collaborative meetings or the actual MACOSH meeting.

	I look forward to working with the committee and I just appreciate you
are allowing me to partake in the process.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.  Les.

	MR. JOHNSON:  Well, I would like to thank our OSHA staff for arranging
to have a meeting in such a wonderful location here.  Thank you for all
of your hard work.  I know that without you do, this would not be
possible.  I would also like to thank our host, the University of South
Florida.  Your support and I forgot the other word – your support and
hospitality were second to none.  And on a personal note, I have taken
the OSHA 5400 course and the OSHA 5402 through the University of South
Florida.  The education I received greatly helps me with the job that I
do on this committee.  And believe me, I do put that on my resume too
when I applied for membership on this committee.  So thank you very
much.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thanks, Les.  Robert.

	MR. GODINEZ:  Yeah, once again I would just reiterate what everyone
said about thanking, you know, the University, the staff and all of the
help that we have to make this possible.  Especially, we are in a
situation where we are losing some members and, you know, those members
have been very, very helpful to make this, you know, a viable
organization.  So we are going to miss the guys and, you know, I bid
them farewell.  And hopefully, you know, they are moving on to things
that, you know, they are going to be adding more to what we do in the
industry.  

	And our chair, you know, the two chairs are great chairs.  They keep us
moving forward and they keep us in line and it really helps to, you
know, getting the information and, you know, the phone calls and moving
forward.  And Jim, thank you for the chair here and Amy.  So anyway, I
hope to be back for the next charter.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.  Kelly.

	MR. GARBER:  Well they say the quickest way to be successful is to
surround yourself with successful people.  And I have had the privilege
of that experience here.  You guys are great.  Constant professionals
across the board.  As Tim pointed out, you know, it’s a learning
experience every time you surround yourself with other people’s
experience and intelligence.  And I greatly appreciate all of the work
that you guys have done.  And I will miss being with you, it’s been a
pleasure both personally and professionally.  

	One thing I would like to add before I go and I would like to kind of
ducktail on both comments that Don and James both made earlier to the
agency is take advantage of this group.  This is a wealth of power and
information up here.  There are some high horsepower people.  In
watching Kurt Petermeyer’s presentation I noted that there were four
fatalities for which we have produced documents for.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  I noted.

	MR. GARBER:  Yeah, and that’s great.  I’m glad you’re on the same
page with me.  I must be -- see, successful people.  And it occurred to
me, can we get anywhere to amplify how much we get those documents out. 
Whatever it takes to get those out in the street, to the small places,
to the large places as a form of terminal guide.  You know, working with
the Longshore industry, getting information out on safety is always a
challenge and I think that the documents that are created here with this
committee both the Longshore and the Shipyard worker, we just need to do
our best to get it out into the public where it belongs so we can start
having an even greater impact on reduction of fatalities and reduction
of injuries in the work place.  

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you, and thank you again for your service. 
And we know where you live, don’t worry.

	Chelsea, I’m going to ask you to make any comments but most I’m
going to ask you if you don’t mind, talk a little bit more about
yourself because many members, we are just now getting to know you and
that sort of thing.  So just a few moments about yourself, if you want
to, about your background and then any observations that you may have. 
But if you care not to do that, that’s okay too.

	MR. WOODWARD:  So I have a choice.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  You can either do one, the other or both.

	MR. WOODWARD:  How about in a different order.  First of all, I would
like to thank you all for welcoming me to the committee.  And I would
want to make a comment that I see how high the bar is raised here and
the work that has been produced.  And I am looking forward to future
work with the committee and hope that my role will help maintain that
high level of achievement.

	I also wanted to say that many – many people provided input makes a
better product.  Whether it’s from the committee here or from the
public or a combination of both.  And so I want to make sure that
everyone feels welcome in providing that input to the committee as work
goes on.

	So is that --

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  You can do whatever you want, it’s open mic.

	MR. WOODWARD:  So I took over for Dr. John Houghton, he went on further
into the ranks of CBC and wasn’t able to complete his term.  So I had
the -- at the time last week, a dubious honor of being tapped and --
it’s on your -- welcome to the MACOSH committee.  And at that point in
time I say dubious because I wasn’t sure what I had gotten into. 
I’m pleased with what I found and I am looking forward to working with
the committee.

	My background is with commercial fishing safety, design and development
of safety interventions.  So my background is more at the -- at the base
level, working with the fisherman and identifying problems and coming up
with documents that can affect the safety of so many people, I try to --
the safety interventions that are more of the mechatronics type of
application.  So I have to shift gears a little bit in order to apply
what I know and do and what the committee does.  And I see where that
could benefit my work and the work with the committee.

	So I am excited about being here and hopefully I will be in next
year’s group and thank you very much for the warm welcome. 

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you very much.  And thank you for your
contributions already.  Jennifer?

	MS. LEVIN:  I want to say that as your counsel, I really enjoy working
with you and appreciate the work that the members do.  You really work
very hard in your commitment to workers’ safety and health.  It’s
second to no one’s.  Your professionalism and spirit of collaboration
are really noteworthy.  And people’s ability to appreciate each
other’s point of view and come together around a common goal I think
is one of the things that’s been the hallmark of this committee and
one reason that it is so successful.  And I look forward to supporting
your efforts in the future.  Thanks.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you, Jennifer.

	MS. WANGDAHL:  I have a long list, not quite an Emmy thank you speech
but -- I want to think the members of MACOSH, specifically Ken, Tim and
Kelly.  I know you won’t be back with us but I do really appreciate
all of the work that the entire committee puts in.  You really have been
improving the safety for maritime workers for many years.  And I really
appreciate all of the hours that you’re putting in.

	I want to thank the members of the steering committee.  They come to
every MACOSH meeting, wherever we have it.  And not only do they attend,
but they’re also participating there at the table.  They are giving us
their viewpoints so that’s really instrumental in the success of
committee as a whole, so thank you.

	I want to thank the presenters, Bill, Kurt, Les, Don, Steve and Ken.

	They were all very gracious when we reached out to them, whether it was
me or Nick and stepped up to the plate very quickly and we appreciate
all of the presentations that you gave.  And I want to thank the staff
Jenny, Vanessa, Danielle and Nick.  They put a lot of work in to MACOSH
in between the meetings.  Everything that they do makes this week run
much smoother than it ever could.  You know, between the conference
calls, manipulating all of the documents, taking notes, listening to
travel complaints, reimbursement complaints -- so I do.  I appreciate
everything that they do so thank you.

	And then a final thank you to Nick.  He did -- this was a lot of
logistical test work happening from D.C. to here without us ever seeing
it.  And Kayla from USF, you know, the two of you working together, this
was just a great meeting so thank you both very much.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Don.

	MR. RAFFO:  I just want to quickly piggy-back on something Amy Sly-Liu
said.  I still have trouble calling you that, maybe you can get your
husband to change his name.

	But she talked about, you know, the presentations that are valuable
here.  And I also not only would mention the presentations that the
staff provides but also the relationships that are developed here.  I
take a lot of the information here and bring it back to the chemists and
they actually disseminated throughout the shipyard throughout the
country.  Some of the presentations the other day Ken sent out that
document about the ships coming from China with possible contamination. 
And I sent it out to the chemists and I have already got comments back. 
And there has been back and forth with NFPA.  So just all of the
information that starts here, does not end here.  It filters down to the
people that need it.  And like I said, just the relationships being able
to talk to people here, get a different point of view.  Even, you know,
I typically have someone from the agency, it’s Amy present at our
seminars.  And when she talked about some of the products that the
Shipyard Work Group was working on, people couldn’t wait to get.  So
there’s a need out there, there’s a want out there.  You know, we
have posted actually some drafts out there already.  So the things that
we’re doing do matter.  People are anxious to get them and they get
them down to the people that actually need them.  So once again, it’s
just a general thank you to everybody for working together and just the
whole concept of this advisory committee and how it can filter down and
help all of the workers so thank you.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Ken.

	MR. SMITH:  Well, as a T.V. personality, I want a chance to say at the
end of the show and I am so glad we have had this time.  And you stole
my thunder because I love you, man.

	So but all things apart from that, I want to say thank you to everyone.
 Jim, I think part of what makes -- and Amy and the OSHA staff, I think
what makes us work is that we can lighten the moods on occasion, we can
laugh together and we can focus on common safety issues.  That is what
makes us unique and that we come from different backgrounds.  We look at
it from different perspectives and it’s been a real pleasure for me to
work on the MACOSH committee.  I hope not to be far away.  I still hope
that we – the Coast Guard has submitted a name and I hope that our
relationship can continue to move on.  And I would hope to be able to
provide presentations in the future if you’re in Washington or if my
office allows me to travel, I would be more than happy to update you and
keep you informed.

	Don, you know, that email I sent is just a little thing that I will
continue.  Whenever I get little bits of information that I feel are
going to help you, Tim you know sometimes those casualty reports come
out and I always try to send you something and Jerry and Kelly, to try
and make you aware of some of those incidents out there that have
occurred and just to be more careful.  So, you know, I really have had a
wonderful time and I think you all for everything.  The nice comments
and to the OSHA crew out in the audience, one thing I would like to ask
of you is that you go back to your areas when you do go back to continue
to work on your relationships with the Coast Guard offices in your
geographical areas.  I think we do share a lot of common things with the
maritime industry.  And fostering those working relationships with the
Coast Guard and OSHA out in the field is important for the Coast Guard. 
And I would ask that you just maybe work to foster those relationships a
little bit better.  To the OSHA staff that has put all of this together,
the regulatory guy up in Washington and our division has a couple of
advisory committees.  So it’s a lot of work and you really don’t see
what goes on behind the scenes but there is a lot of work there.  And so
all of the work that has been done and all of the fun and all of the
things that we have done, I thank you from the bottom of my heart.  So
thank you very much.	

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you, Tim.  We know where you live too. 
Solomon.

	MR. EGBE:  Well, I have sat for just over a year now on the advisory
committee and it’s been a great experience for me.  Kelly, Don, Jim
and Amy have been extremely good leaders, so I have learned a lot from
them.  The membership -- the general membership has provided invaluable
results for me.  It’s easy to get information that I need to address
issues and certain challenges that we face in the field.  

	One of the biggest things I found most interesting was to be able to be
in an environment where everybody is actually interested in the safety
of the workers, period.  Usually you find yourself in an involvement
where people are trying to defend the state government employer or
people that are trying to defend the state of liberal or regulators are
trying to focus on enforcement.  So it’s nice to be in an environment
where everybody tries to put all of that aside and then just try to
focus on developing ways of preventing injuries, period.  So that’s
really what I find the most interesting with this committee.  

	It’s been very helpful for my industry too because after every
meeting, our meetings are usually a week or month after the MACOSH
meeting except for this one where the dates coincided.  So most of the
reports we have here, I take it back to the meeting and it gets
distributed throughout the entire industry.

	So this has been an experience.  I like working with everybody -- I am
commended by my peers, my colleagues, and my other members.  So I am
looking forward to see what comes out of it.  So thank you all very much
and Kelly, I hate to see you go.  I saw the amount of work you did and I
don’t think I wish that on anybody else.  But thanks for being such a
good leader.

	MR. HARRISON:  Yes, sir.  I want to thank everybody for allowing me to
be a part of this group.  It is a pleasure to serve.  I have spent the
majority of my life in the working industry trying to make money.  Now
I’m going to spend the balance of my time trying to make a different. 
And to that point I want to mention the term that I will not give up
your proposal about trying to keep those quick cards alive even in your
absence.

	Because we have found in the past it is a very useful tool for us and a
very easy way to get information to the working man.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you, Danny.

	Jim Rone.

	MR. RONE:  Sure.  I am happy to be here, sir.  When I was invited to
join this panel I was told I was going to be dealing with some of the
varsity in in the industry.  And Chuck (unintelligible) was right. 
It’s been my pleasure to work with you guys for the last -- little
over a year I guess.  And I hope to go on working with you.

	Kelly, Tim and Ken -- I didn’t know you were leaving too.  You will
be missed.

	CHAIRMAN THORNTON:  Thank you.

	I just had a couple of comments.  I think everybody here has been
thanked except for one group and that is the public.  I think the public
including the OSHA – everybody out there sitting in those chairs.  I
know those chairs get hard and I know it gets long and all of that.  But
I sincerely appreciate your attending and also participating in the work
groups.  One of the things that we really set this up is to allow input
from everyone.  So the work groups doing kind of the work on generally
Tuesday.  Hopefully we provided an atmosphere and a climate and an
environment for you to contribute. 

	And we need that.  We covet that, we appreciate that.  So please keep
coming it means so much.  I think the other observation I have made is,
you know, you think about what we do and what the agency wants.  We are
supposed to advise the agency on matters on the fact of occupational
safety and health in the maritime industry.  And lest you think our work
isn’t meaningful, check the injury rates. If you look at the injury
rates in our industry versus the rival those in agriculture industry and
construction and other industries, we are moving the needle, that’s my
term.  And compared to other industries, we are in a downward decline, a
good thing in terms of injuries and illness.  So we are making a
difference out there.  That’s what we look at, do more people go home
at the end of the day to their families that otherwise would.  And the
answer to that is yes.  So we are doing what we are -- what we are
supposed to do.  I know this -- sometimes this stuff gets old to you and
challenging, we are all very busy but it is meaningful work.  And it
could mean, the success in this business is the failure that you never
see.  Think about it.  The success is really what you don’t see.  And
I think we are succeeding in that capacity.

	The other thing, and I was very surprised and pleasantly surprised at
Bill Perry’s comment that the agency recognized that we are the most
– I think he said the most productive and most effective or -- we will
get it on -- we’ve got in on the record.  But it was good, whatever it
was, and that kind of thing.  So I think the agency understands the
value that we bring to them and to the employees as well.

	And so in closing, I want to thank everybody for allowing me to be your
chairman.  It’s easy work, it really is.  You guys make it easy.  I
think as Ken or somebody said we have a little bit of fun added along
the way and that kind of thing but we kind of work hard and we play
hard.  I enjoy making personal connections that may include people that
I didn’t know before and that kind of thing.  And that’s makes for a
really -- we are a very small industry if you look at numbers.  We are
probably 100,00 soaking wet but we are a very collegial industry and I
think what makes us different and separates us I think we are able to
leave our agendas at the door when we come in here.  I know we all have
agendas, don’t get me wrong.  We represent employers and we represent,
you know labor unions, etcetera, etcetera and state agencies and federal
agencies.  But we all seem to be able to have the capacity to kind of
check those things at the door and kind of role our sleeves up and do
the right thing for the people and for employees out there.  And
that’s what makes this – that’s what makes the job so much easier
and so much – I think so much more rewarding.

	So with that, let me just say -– so even though the retiring members
still have until January, we are going to work you like dogs, okay.  For
the rest of the time.  This may be your last face to face meeting but
you ain’t off the hook yet.  So, you know, so we are going to work you
hard.

	So with that, I want to thank everybody.  I want to thank USF for
hosting us.  Yes, West Virginia, remember it, okay.  So they make great
hosts so give them a hand, will you?

	(Applause)

	So the other thing is you have now set the bar and we are expecting
this treatment going forward -- the OSHA staff is make it better next
time.  Thank you everyone.  I will call for a motion for adjournment.

	All in favor may leave, how about that?  Thank you very much.

(Whereupon, the meeting was concluded at 3:48p.m.)

CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPTIONIST

THE STATE OF FLORIDA

	I, ASHLEIGH SIMMONS, C.E.R.T., Court Reporter and Legal
Transcriptionist, hereby certify that I was authorized to and did
transcribe the MACOSH meeting.

	I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or
counsel of any of the parties to this cause, nor a relative or employee
of any attorney or party connected with this litigation, nor am I
financially interested in the outcome of this action.

	DATED this 18th day of September, 2015, in Tampa, Florida.

ASHLEIGH SIMMONS, C.E.R.T.

Notary Public, State of Florida

My Commission #FF237881

Expires September 28, 2019

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  4 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free:  888-445-3376