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