Committee Chairperson: Pat Finn, Department of Energy
- Headquarters (DOE-HQ) EH-51,
called the meeting of the DOE Construction Safety
Advisory Committee (CSAC) to order.
Mr. Finn welcomed attendees and introductions were
made (See Attachment 1, List of
1. Mr. Finn discussed the following events
and issues that have occurred or developed since
the last meeting:
NOTE: A number of handouts were issued
to committee members during the meeting and are
referenced within the meeting minutes. Copies
of these handouts will not be re-issued as part
of the meeting minutes. If you are interested in
a copy of a referenced handout please contact me
and I will ensure you get a copy.
- DOE’s Worker Health and Safety Response Line
interpretations completed since the May1998 committee
meeting in Las Vegas Nevada involving construction
safety were handed out to committee members.
Mr. Finn indicated that all construction and
hoisting & rigging safety issues, except asbestos,
industrial hygiene and recording keeping issues
are resolved by him . A recently published
DOE Environment, Safety & Health “Safety &
Health Note” (See Attachment 2), discusses the roles
and responsibilities of the DOE’s response line.
The phone number and INTERNET address are provided
in the Note. Mr. Finn urged the committee
to use the response line service if the need arises.
Mr. Finn told committee members that in most cases
construction and hoisting/rigging responses rendered
are researched using expertise from CSAC members
or the DOE Hoisting and Rigging Technical Advisory
committee members and in most cases, the person
asking the question is contacted to make sure the
question in need of interpretation is correctly
understood and the background behind question is
known. In many cases, the background behind
the question is a disagreement between those providing
oversight and direction and the contractor who feels
the direction is overzealous or beyond the contractual
requirements. Mr. Finn reminded the committee
that the reason for the response line is not to
intervene and/or rule on issues that are not clearly
- A copy of the recently signed an agreement between
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) and the National Commission for the Certification
of Crane Operators (NCCCO), was handed out to committee
members. The agreement officially recognizing
the national crane operator certification program.
This initiative evolved from a tower crane accident
in the San Francisco about twelve years ago and
preliminary OSHA efforts to initiate of rulemaking
involving the certification of crane operators.
The hoisting & rigging industry, specifically
the Specialized Carriers and Riggers Association
and the International Union of Operating Engineers,
established a work group, the “National Commissions
for the Certification of Crane Operators” to establish
a voluntary consensus process for certification
of crane operators. It is specifically directed
at states and municipalities that do not have legislative
mandates for crane operator certification. With
the signing of this agreement, OSHA will now recognize
operators who have achieved certification through
this program as meeting the training and qualification
requirements of the OSHA standards and those referenced
ASME B30 Crane standards.
NOTE: If any DOE sites that are located
in states or locations that does not have a crane
operator certification program and are interested
in trying the NCCCO program out as a “pilot program,”
contact Mr. Finn.
- OSHA regulatory standards updates were handed
out to committee members.
a. OSHA’s Advisory
Committee on Construction Safety and Health meets
the week of May 3, 1999 in Washington D.C. to provide
guidance on proposed OSHA
rulemaking activities. Their proposed standard
“Safety and Health Program for
Construction,” is in draft proposal only.
At this time, the draft proposal reads
very similar to the old DOE Construction Safety
Order 5480.9a, which the
subcommittee used as its straw man for developing
the draft proposal. OSHA just
did release a proposed standard for “Safety and
Health Programs” under their 29
CFR 1910 General Industry Standard. Just two
or three years ago, OSHA
indicated that they were only going to have one
safety and health program
standard for all industries. Both industry
and labor opposed this approach. As a
result of this opposition, the new 29 CFR 1910 draft
proposed standard for Safety
and Health Programs does not include the construction
industry. However, all
organizations are still not happy with the proposed
standard. Several construction
industry trade associations are opposed to this
standard because some of the
construction trades, electrical and mechanical
for example, frequently return to
completed projects for warranty or other post completion
work. They will now be
required to perform this work under the jurisdiction
29 CFR 1910 General
Industry standards. This work would require
a safety and health program be in
place even though, at this point in time, the
construction industry does not require
this type of program in 29 CFR 1926 subpart C.
Also, if and when a construction
safety program standard is completed, there is concern
that two separate program
standards will apply to their operations.
b. DOE officially took
issue with and submitted numerous comments to OSHA’s
proposed rule on the Steel Erection. OSHA scheduled
nine days of informal public hearings to hear objections
to the way the standard was written. It should
be noted that the standard is written verbatim as
it was submitted to OSHA by their Steel Erection
Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee (SENRAC).
OSHA had taken great pride in the fact that they had
established a negotiated rulemaking committee that was
able to come to consensus in writing this standard.
OSHA thought everything was fine with the proposed
standard, but has since found out that numerous other
organizations not represented on the SENRAC are
not happy with the proposed standard and have so stated
in the informal hearings.
c. OSHA’s 29 CFR 1926 subpart M, "Fall
Protection" standard has received objections from the
residential construction industry with regard to the
difficulty of applying certain provisions of this standard.
OSHA has elected to reopen subpart M for comment for the
purpose of resolving these issues.
d. OSHA’s is considering making several
changes to 29 CFR 1926 subpart L, "Scaffolds.” These
include providing access to platforms where decking
extends past the ends of the scaffold, changing the
minimum width for roof brackets to less than 12 inches,
changing the requirements for grounding of the scaffold
during welding operations, and requiring the use of
scaffold grade planks.
e. OSHA wants
to go forth with a construction specific confined
space standard. Several construction industry trade
associations have expressed opposition to the
requirements for a permit system for confined space
entry. However, it appears that OSHA intends to
issue a proposed rule for confined space entry that
includes a permit entry requirement.
OSHA’s existing PPE standard, 29 CFR 1926.95, requires
that personal protective equipment (PPE) be provided and
used when necessary to protect employees from hazards
which can cause them injury, illness, or physical
harm. OSHA is now proposing to revise its PPE standards
to clarify who is required to pay for the required
PPE and under what circumstances. According to the
proposal, the employer would be required to provide
all OSHA-required PPE at no cost to the employees with the
exception of protective footwear and prescription safety
eyeglasses that can also be used off the jobsite.
Bills for OSHA reform proposed in the 106th Congress,
were handed out to committee members.
a. Republican sponsored
house bill, H. R. 1192 “OSHA Reform Act of 1999,”
which states all new proposed standards can only be
developed if; the standard is needed to address a significant risk of material impairment
to workers and will substantially reduce that risk; there is a reasonable
relationship between the costs and benefits of the standard and the standard will
provide protection for the employees in the most cost-effective manner to minimize
employment loss. The bill establishes the right for non-organized labor
safety and health committees at the work sites to be formed to discuss work site conditions.
Organized labor contends that allowing safety and health committees
to be formed to discuss work site conditions should not be allowed on non-organized
work sites because only organized labor can establish cooperative arrangements
between the employer and the workers on issues of work site safety.
A significant aspect of Bill H. R. 1192 is that
it fundamentally gets rid of OSHA’s
compliance efforts altogether. Enforcement
is basically eliminated and any
compliance would be basically cooperative on the
part of the employer with a
great deal of emphasis placed upon programs such
as OSHA's existing Voluntary
b. In contrast to
the above proposed bill, the Democrat's Senate proposal,
S.653 “Safer Workplace Act,” strengthens employee
protection from reprisals and increases penalties for
noncompliance. This bill proposes to greatly
increase the penalties for citations whereas H.R. 1192
greatly reduces OSHA's compliance activities and
focuses on industry cooperation through voluntary
programs and OSHA outreach activities.
c. Bill H. R. 987
“Workplace Preservation Act,” would prohibit OSHA
from promulgating or issuing any standard or guidelines
on ergonomics until the National Academy of Science
completes a peer-reviewed scientific study of the
available evidence examining a cause and effect
relationship between repetitive tasks in the work-place
and musculoskeletal disorders
or repetitive stress injuries
and submits their findings to Congress.
d. Bill S.
651 “Wrongful Death Accountability Act,” would greatly
penalties for wrongful death in the work place.
e. Bill S. 650 “Federal
Employees Safety Enhancement Act,” which will put
federal employees, including those working for the
post office, under OSHA’s
jurisdiction. If passed the act would allow
OSHA to inspect federal agency
workplaces, cite and impose penalties on those agencies.
- A recent court decision struck down an OSHA
that concentrated the agency's enforcement efforts
on establishments having higher than average incidence
rates that did not respond to OSHA notifications
to implement comprehensive safety and health programs
or be subject to enhanced scrutiny during inspections
(See Attachment 3). The U. S. Chamber of Commerce,
which challenged the program in court, argued that
the voluntary program was coercive and mandated
safety standards beyond what is called for in the
federal law. The court ruled that OSHA should
have conducted formal rulemaking before implementing
the program, so that stakeholder concerns could
be factored into the agency’s plans. OSHA
may appeal this decision.
2. Mr. Gerry Lipka, Manager ES&H and Mr. Bryan
Drennan, Construction Safety Officer, Sandia National
Laboratory gave a presentation on “Owners Involvement in
Construction Safety,” (See Attachment 4).
3. Mr. Pat Finn gave a review of the 1998 ORPS/Cairs
Construction Incident and Injury/Illnessdata, (See Attachment 5).
4. Mr. Lynn Holt, LMITCO gave an analysis on
OSHA’s Citation Data from 1991 vs. 1998, (See Attachment 6).
Analysis was based on “The 100 Most Frequently Cited
OSHA Construction Standards in
1991: A guide for the Abatement of the Top 25 Associated
Physical Hazards,” and the
OSHA’s Standards Cited for SIC Division C “Construction”
in 1998. (See INTERNET Addresses:)
5. Mr. Bryan Drennan gave a presentation on
“Site Specific Construction Safety Plans,” (See Attachment
6. Mr. Craig Schumann, DOE-Argonne Group Office
gave a presentation on “Comparison of the 1999 National
Code Provisions to 29 CFR 1926 subpart K,” (See Attachment
7. A round table discussion was held discussing
the inclusion of construction activities into onsite
verification efforts DOE’s
Integrated Safety Management System. Participants
in the discussion were Mr. August Maniez, DOE
Savannah River Operations Office; Mr. David Worrall,
DOE Oak Ridge Operations Office;
Mr. Allan Herrbach, DOE Albuquerque Operations Office;
Ms. Eva Jean Bryson, DOE Rock
Flats Field Office; and Mr. Craig Hauber, Westinghouse WEC/WIPP. Mr. Herrbach
did provide handouts. The discussion revealed that
construction activities were not universally
reviewed at all sites, and at those sites where construction
was reviewed, the approach was
not consistent from site to site.
8. Mr. Jim Belleau, Western Area Power Association
gave a presentation on his involvement with
OSHA’s Communication Tower
Construction and Maintenance Activities Task Force.
Presentation handouts were
issued to committee members.
9. Mr. David Worrall provided an update to
the committee on the ETTP Trackhoe incident
at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
For details, you may contact Mr. Worrall at
10. Ms. Eva Jean Bryson; Mr Richard Scott, DOE Oakland
Operations Office; and Mr. Ken Zahora, National Ignition
Facility (NIF) Project Team gave a presentation on
the safety program at the
NIF project. Presentation handouts were issued
to committee members.
11. New Business/Open Discussion
- Mr. Scott Potter, DOE Richland Operations Office
provided “Site Engineering Division (SED) Surveillance
Checklist” being used at the Hanford site.
The checklist provide SED guidance for conducting
and documenting surveillances of assigned facilities,
projects, and activities, (See Attachments 9).
For further information you may contact Mr. Potter
at (509) 376-6114.
12. Mr. Finn adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m..