Meeting Minutes - May 11, 2000
Construction Safety Advisory Committee
US Department of Energy
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Chairperson: Pat Finn, Department of Energy – Headquarters
|EH-51, called the meeting of the DOE Construction
Safety Advisory committee (CSAC) to order. Mr. Finn
welcomed attendees and introductions were made.
|1. Mr. Finn discussed the following events
and issues that have occurred or developed since the
|a. DOE’s Worker Health and Safety Response
Line interpretations involving construction that have
been completed since last year’s CSAC meeting in Berkeley,
CA were passed out to committee members. If anyone
has any questions concerning the interpretations, please
give Mr. Finn a call (301) 903-9876.
|b. Mr. Finn attended OSHA’s Advisory Committee
on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) meeting on
May 4 and 5, 2000 in Washington D. C. This committee
meets to provide guidance to OSHA on its rulemaking,
enforcement and outreach activities. A review of ongoing
or proposed rulemaking efforts was conducted and a summary
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926
Fall Protection in the Construction Industry –
OSHA has solicited input through public notice on
fall protection issues impacting certain construction
processes such a residential home building, pre-cast
concrete operations and post frame construction.The
ANPR also addresses the fall protection rule as
it applies to roofing work, residential construction
operations, climbing reinforcement steel, and vendors
delivering materials to construction projects.
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926.450; 29 CFR 1926.451;
S29 CFR 1926.452; 29 CFR 1926.453; 29 CFR 1926.454
Safety Standards for Scaffolds Used in the Construction
Industry Part II – Since the promulgation of a final
rule for scaffolds used in construction in August
1996, several issues have arisen under the new standard.
The agency will solicit information on issues including
(1) providing access to platforms where decking
extends past the ends of the scaffold; (2) changing
the minimum width for roof brackets to less than
12 inches; (3) changing the requirement for grounding
of the scaffold during welding operations; and (4)
requiring the use of scaffold grade planks.
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926.52
Hearing Loss Prevention for Construction Workers
– OSHA issued a standard mandating a comprehensive
hearing conservation program for noise exposed workers
in general industry in 1983. However, a number of
recent studies have shown that a large number of
construction workers experience work–related hearing
addition, current industry practice with regard
to the use of engineering, administrative and personal
protective equipment to reduce exposure to noise
is low in the construction industry.
OSHA intends to initiate stakeholder meetings
to gather information on the extent of noise-induced
hearing loss among workers in different construction
trades, current practices to reduce this loss, and
additional approaches and protections that could
be used to prevent such loss in the future.
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1926; 29 CFR
1915; 29 CFR 1916; 29 CFR 1917; 29 CFR 1918
Occupation Exposure to Crystalline Silica – Silica
exposure remains a serious threat to nearly 2 million
U.S. workers, including more than 100,000 workers
in high risk jobs such as abrasive blasting, foundry
work, stonecutting, rock drilling, quarry work and
tunneling. The seriousness of the health hazards associated
with silica exposure is demonstrated by the fatalities
and disabling illnesses that continue to occur in
sandblasters and rock drillers and by recent studies
that demonstrate a statistically significant increase
in lung cancer among silica exposed workers.
Additionally, recent studies suggest that
the current OSHA standard is insufficient to protect
OSHA plans to publish a proposed rule on
crystalline silica to protect silica-exposed workers
in general industry, construction and maritime.
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926.200; 29 CFR 1926.201;
29 CFR 1926.202; 29 CFR 1926.203
Signs, Signals, and Barricades – OSHA’s standard
on Signs, Signals and Barricades currently incorporates
the American National Standards Institute’s (ANSI)
1971 industry consensus standard ANSI D6.1 1971.
The ANSI organization has withdrawn its 1971 standard
and the U. S. Department of Transportation has issued
an updated standard, a Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD).
OSHA intends to issue a proposal to update
Subpart G to incorporate the requirements of the
Department of Transportation’s MUTCD into the OSHA
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926.750 (Revision); 29
CFR 1926.751 (Revision); 29 CFR 1926.752 (Revision)
Steel Erection (Part 1926 Safety Protection for
Ironworkers) – In 1992, OSHA announced that it would
develop a proposal for revising steel erection safety
requirement using the negotiated rulemaking process.
In negotiated rulemaking, OSHA, industry and employee
representatives meet as an advisory committee and
attempt to forge a consensus on the proposed standard. An advisory committee for this rule was formed
in 1994. Its
work resulted in the publication of a proposed rule
on August 13, 1998. A public hearing was held in Washington,
D. C. in December 1998.
The post hearing comment period closed April
12, 1999. OSHA is no working to complete a final rule.
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.132; 29 CFR 1915.152;
29 CFR 1917.96; 29 CFR 1918.106; 29 CFR 1926.95
Employer Payment for Personal Protective Equipment
– OSHA standards require that protective equipment,
including personal protective equipment (PPE) be
provided and used when necessary to protect employees
from hazards that can cause them injury, illness,
or physical harm.
OSHA is proposing to revise its PPE standards
to clarify who is required to pay for required PPE
and under what circumstances.
According to the proposal, employers would
be required to provide all OSHA-required PPE at
no cost to employees, with the following exceptions:
the employer would not pay for safety-toe protective
footwear or prescription safety eyewear if all three
of the following conditions are met: (1) the employer
permits such footwear or eyewear to be worn off
the job-site; (2) the footwear or eyewear is not
used in a manner that renders it unsafe for use
off the job-site (for example, contaminated safety-toe
footwear would not be permitted to be worn off the
job-site); and (3) such footwear or eyewear is not
designed for special use on the job.
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.134; 29 CFR 1915.152;
29 CFR 1918.102; 29 CFR 1926.103
Respiratory Protection (Proper use of Modern Respirators)
– OSHA published the final respiratory protection
standard, except for the reserved provision on assigned
protection factors (APFs).APFs are numbers that
estimate the degree of performance of the various
classes of respirators. OSHA has developed a statistical
model for analyzing available data that will be
used to derive APFs. According, OSHA will request further public
comment on the analyses conducted using their statistical
model, the ANSI Z88.2-1992 APFs, the NIOSH Respirator
Decisions Logic APFs and other relevant methods
for deriving APFs.
This will assure that OSHA receives and fully
considers public input before issuing APFs.
OSHA expects to complete rulemaking on APFs
Confined Spaces in Construction (Part 1926): Preventing
Suffocation/Explosions in Confined Spaces – In January
1993, OSHA issued a general industry rule to protect
employees who enter confined spaces (29 CFR 1910.146).
This standard does not apply to the construction
industry because of differences in the nature of
the worksites in the construction industry. In discussions
with the United Steel Workers of America on a settlement
agreement for the general industry standard, OSHA
agreed to issue a proposed rule to extend confined-space
protection to construction workers appropriate to
their work environment. One million construction
workers are exposed to the hazards of confined space
entry each year. OSHA intends to issue a proposed rule addressing
this construction industry hazard next year.
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.136; 29 CFR 1910.137;
29 CFR 1910.269; 29 CFR 1926.97; 29 CFR 1926.950
Electric Power Transmission and Distribution; Electrical
Protective Equipment in the Construction Industry
– The annual fatality rate for power line workers
is over 50 deaths per 100,000 employees.
The construction industry standard addressing
the safety of these workers during the construction
of electric power transmission and distribution
lines is over 20 years old. OSHA is developing a revision of this standard
that will prevent many of these fatalities, that
will add flexibility to the standard, and that will
update and streamline the standard.
In addition, OSHA intends to amend the corresponding
standard for general industry so that requirements
for work performed during maintenance of electric
power transmission and distribution installations
are the same as those for similar work in construction.
Safety and Health Programs for Construction – In
response to industry requests and in response to
the recommendation of OSHA’s ACCSH, OSHA has determined
that the current safety and health program standards
contained in subpart C of the construction standards,
29 CFR 1926, need to be revised to provide construction
employers with a more comprehensive set of requirements
to assist them in establishing safety and health
programs. Although OSHA is still developing the
details of a new proposed safety and health program
standard, the proposal will require employers to
set up a program for managing workplace safety and
health in order to reduce the incidence of occupational
deaths, injuries, and illnesses. The Standard will
not impose duties on employers to control hazards
that they are not already required to control. Instead, the standard will provide a basic
framework for systematically identifying and controlling
workplace hazards already covered by the OSH Act
under section 5(a)(1) and current OSHA standards.
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926
Control of Hazardous Energy (Lock out – Tag out)
in Construction– OSHA issued a general industry
rule on September 1, 1989 to address the hazards
posed to workers by the failure to control hazardous
energy (i.e., the failure to properly lockout or
tagout machines and equipment) during repair and
OSHA has not yet issued a standard to prevent
these accidents during equipment repair and maintenance
activities in the construction industry. Four million workers annually may be exposed
to this hazard in construction workplaces. Construction sites often do not have effective lockout/tagout
procedures to control hazardous energy because of
several factors, all associated with the nature
of the construction industry. These factors basically related to the types
of machines and equipment found in construction;
the makeup of the industry (i.e., employment is
relatively “short term,” lasting only as long as
the length of the current project); multiple employers
having different employer/employee relationships
are present at the same site; and “in-the-field”
maintenance activity is usually temporary. OSHA intends to issue a proposal to address
this hazard in the industry.
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1915 to 1918;
29 CFR 1926; 29 CFR 1928
Consolidation of Records Maintenance Requirements
in OSHA Standards-
OSHA is initiating a rulemaking to simplify and
consolidate many of its requirements for employers
to maintain records of training, testing, medical
surveillance, and other activities conducted to
comply with OSHA health and safety standards. These
records maintenance requirements appear in many
OSHA standards and are codified at 29 CFR 1910 (General
Industry), 29 CFR 1915 - 1918 (Maritime), 29 CFR
1926 (Construction), and 29 CFR 1928 (Agriculture). The final rule, when published, will facilitate
compliance with these requirements and reduce the
amount of paperwork associated with these records,
but will leave employee protections unchanged.
| C. ANSI A10 Standards Action. Mr. Finn,
a member of the ANSI A10 Committee on Safety in Construction
and Demolition Operations, sent out two revised standards
to the CSAC members for review. Committee members were
sent copies of standards A10-16 Tunnels,
Shafts and Caissons and A10-31 Digger
members were reminded to review and comment on the two
documents and send comments to Mr. Finn.
|Mr. Russ Baumeister, DOE-Yucca Mountain Site
Characterization Office, gave a presentation on Analyzing Skill of the Craft Worker for ISM
Definition: Skill of the Worker (SOW) shall be identified
as those skills that come from the five following
- Education and field experience which qualifies
a person as a specialist in a particular field.
This includes states local or national licenses
or certifications earned from various governmental
licenses, professional organizations, industry standard
- Craft union Apprenticeship
- On the Job Training
(OJT) received at Yucca Mountain Project (YMP),
or other documented OJT.
- Documented specialized training received while
employed outside YMP.
- The skill acquired from
years working as a Journeyman skilled craftsman.
|No work instructions are required for
activities identified as Skill of the Worker if they
meet the following requirements. The work tasks:
Are routine and present now level of risk.
- Do not require documented work history or configuration management.
- Are specified in attachments or other written
- Meet the above criteria and are controlled by existing procedures.
Mr. Dave Robbins, Brookhaven National Laboratory
(BNL), gave a presentation on “Qualifying Contractors for Bid.”
Prior BNL contracting practice;
Fair & Open Bidding, not Free & Open Bidding.
- BNL contractor evaluation committee pre-determines a select group of
"qualified" contractors to participate in the bidding
- Contractors are pre-qualified for a period of 2 years. Being qualified does “not” grant automatic
award for lowest bidder.
- Performance “history” from prior and ongoing projects may disqualify
a bidder. Committee evaluation includes contractor history generated from several
- review of prior and ongoing projects,
- interviews with previous customer project personnel,
- insurance and OSHA record keeping data.
- Levels the “playing field” for responsible contractors to provide quality
product at a reasonable profit.
- Less need for contractor to be compelled to seek change orders or other
sources of additional revenue.
- Qualification submittals are reviewed every two years vs. every project.
- Reviews focus on project-specific criteria, not generic corporate policy.
- Contractors managing safety and health deliverables along with managing quality,
budget and schedule deliverables.
Mr. Rich Haddock, DOE Oakland Operations Office, gave a presentation
on the “Lessons Learned” from a Back Injury Accident at the National
An employee of the mechanical contractor installing
duct work at the
National Ignition Facility project suffered a serious
injury when the hoist support lumber failed.
When the lumber support member fractured, the
hoist load (duct) fell to the work platform floor,
striking the worker.
This resulted in the worker sustaining back
contusions and three fractured vertebrae.
The accident investigation resulted in identification
of Direct Cause, Contribution Causes, Root Causes
and Judgements of Need.
- Less than adequate rigging support.
The hoist support lumber failed due to the
imposed excessive bending moment.
- Work planning was less than adequate in that the mechanical subcontractor
crew foreman did not ensure that an adequate installation
procedure (supported by an accepted Job Hazard Analysis)
was used to install the duct.
- ES&H evaluation process was less than adequate in that the process
that was being used was not in accordance with the
Construction Safety Plan (CSP).
- Worker training was less than adequate in that the mechanical subcontractor
foreman and his crew were conducting hoisting and
rigging operations without the proper training,
qualification, and authorization.
- The activity assessment program was less than adequate in that all three
contractors did not effectively employ supervisors
and ES&H personnel to observe all of the construction
operation and enforce sound safety practices.
- Work performance was less than adequate in that the mechanical subcontractor
worker did not follow established hoist safety requirements.
- ES&H evaluation process was less than adequate in that the Job Hazardous
Analysis (JHA) for this work was required but not
- There was less than adequate supervision and oversight of work from
the subcontractor senior foreman up to and including
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) Program
Management’s safety challenge in a project of this
magnitude is to establish and maintain a construction
site safety culture, which is so strong, effective,
and pervasive that it overcomes any of the participating
contractor safety shortfalls.
- A need exist to develop and implement;
- An improved hazards analysis procedure.
- A safety training program for all contractor managers down to and including
first level supervisors such as foreman.
- An improved policy for to enforcing safety requirements on the construction
- A project construction site Safety and Quality Assurance Plan.
- A hoisting and rigging safety program.
- A revised Construction Safety Management Plan with appropriate support
- A need exist to significantly increase LLNL Program Management’s physical
presence at the construction site.
4. Mr. Craig Schumann, DOE Chicago Operations Office,
gave a presentation on Aerial Lift Tie-Off Requirements.
The requirements found in OSHA 1926.453 apply to
aerial work platforms (AWP) covered in ANSI A92.2
Vehicle-Mounted Elevating and Rotating Aerial Devices.
Listing of all ANSI Aerial Work Platforms Standards
- ANSI A92.2 Vehicle Mounted Elevating and Rotating Aerial Devices,
- ANSI A92.3 Manually Propelled Elevating Work Platforms,
- ANSI A 92.5 Boom-Supported Elevating Work Platforms,
- ANSI A92.6 Self-Propelled Elevating Work Platforms,
- ANSI A92.7 Airline Ground Support Vehicle-Mounted Vertical Lift Devices,
- ANSI A92.8 Vehicle-Mounted Bridge Inspection and Maintenance Devices,
- ANSI A92.9 Mast-Climbing Work Platforms.
The following is a summary of a copy of an article
that was distributed to the committee that was published
in the Scaffold Industry Association newsletter.
Fall-protection regulations found in OSHA 29 CFR
1926, Subpart M do not and should not apply to AWPs. Subpart M addresses guarding unprotected
do not have unprotected edges.
Most of the confusion and misinformation surrounding
this topic is due to the attempt to apply concepts
developed for “free-fall” and “arresting free falls”
in subpart M to AWPs.
However, ejection from a boom-type platform
is the major safety issue relating to fall protection
in AWPs. Guardrails totally enclose the platform and
guard against exposed-edge-type falls.
Guardrails provide adequate protection against
fall hazards other than catapulting forces.
On boom-type machines, a tethering device
is needed so those workers are not separated from
the AWP in the event of a catapulting action.
Self-Propelled Elevating Platforms (ANSI A92.6)
require no additional fall protection beyond a guardrail
A92.6 lifts are tower-like structures and do not produce
catapulting forces thus should be considered similar
to scaffolding with guardrails.
OSHA is intending to issue a letter of interpretation
addressing aerial lifts covered in 29 CFR 1926 subpart
L. The interpretation will state:
- No additional fall protection beyond the guardrail system is required
for a self-propelled AWPs as described in ANSI A92.6
and manually propelled AWPs as described in ANSI
tether must be worn on boom type machines described
in ANSI A92.2 and A92.5.
These devices are to keep a worker from completely
separating from a workbasket should there be a catapulting
of the boom, which propels the worker upward. The issue is not one of free fall but rather
tethering device is not to be confused with personal
fall arrest, position or restraint devices covered
in 29 CFR 1926 subpart M 1926.502(e). The tether should be of sufficient length
to allow free access to the work area with minimal
slack. A tethering device consists of a belt or
harness and lanyard.
Adjustable lanyards or other devices may
be used to minimize tether slack.
Mr. Bryan Drennan, Sandia National Laboratory, gave a presentation on
Learned” from a Construction Accident at Sandia
National Laboratory (SNL).
The accident involved the installation of the hydraulic
system for an elevator.
The 12” PVC liner had been installed the day
before. Two-piece steel jack casing was screwed together and was lowered
half way into the 12” PVC liner.
A welder began to arc weld the coupling on
the casing when an explosion occurred.
Accident investigation findings:
- Flammable atmosphere ignited by welding slag.
- SNL Project Team failed to incorporate specific requirements from Project
Execution Plan (PEP).
- Elevator Contractor failed to plan, identify, and control the project.
- SNL FESH failed to use appropriate change control process.
- DOE did not verify terms of the PEP incorporated into the construction
- SNL Project Management Team did not comply with PEP requirements.
- Prime and Subcontractor used a “generic” hazard analysis for this task.
- Subcontractor did not provide adequate training to the “probationary
help/welder” to recognize hazards.
Safety Management System concepts.
Plan the Work
- Contract change processes need clear definition and incorporation of
all concerned personnel prior to implementation.
- Clear understanding of equipment
procurement by contractor/subcontractor needs to
- Employer responsible for the task must establish and implement a formal
hazard analysis and communication process.
- The prime and subcontractors must implement a task specific hazard analysis
prior to doing work.
- Prime contractor must accept responsibility for the oversight of subcontractor
implementation of their hazard analysis process.
- SNL Project team cut the original conception of requiring a “Full Time
Safety Officer” by the prime contractor.
- Prime and subcontractor did not recognize or control the hazards associated
with elevator installations.
- The elevator subcontractor did not adequately prepare its workers for
the hazards associated with this work (utilization
of the site-specific installation specifications
and the employee handbook).
- The elevator subcontractor foreman did not refer to instructions in
the elevator system installation manual or direct
workers involved with the system to do so.
- The construction contract between SNL and the prime contractor should
have more clearly defined the prime contractor responsibility
over their subcontractors.
- The “generic” hazard analysis did not adequately identify hazards present
in this task.
- The subcontractor failed to identify the hazards associated the work
6. Mr. Craig Schumann, DOE Chicago Operation Office,
gave a presentation on Safety
Concerns with Horizontal Directional Drilling.
- Horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is a form of trenchless technology.
- HDD is sometimes called horizontal directional boring.
- Install all kinds of pipes and lines without excavating.
- Can be used for a variety of installations including electric, telephone,
fiber-optic, gas, water and sewer lines.
- No disruption of residents, traffic or any detrimental effect on landscapes
- Lack of adequate site surveys before drilling – hazard of drilling into
Key Safety Reminders:
- 20 kV boots and gloves (for both the operator and the locator).
- Location of existing utilities.
- During drilling, the locator should step away from the drill head (6
the event of a strike, the locator would not be
standing over the top of the drill head in a potentially
- The machine has rotating shaft hazard, loose clothing should not be
- Operable interlock on the seat so the machine will not run unless the
person is seated.
- Good communications between the operator and the locator (2 way radio
|7. Mr. Robert Stroud, DOE Oakland Operations, gave a presentation on East
Tennessee Technology Part Three-Building D&D and
D&D three buildings filled with gaseous diffusion
process equipment contaminated or potentially contaminated
with uranium and other hazardous material.
The project is performed as a CERCLA Non-Time
Critical Removal Action.
Contracting method was a Fixed-Price contract.
Project Safety Basis Document established Work Smart
- TN/EPA Agreement
- DOE Orders
- Consensus Standards
Contractor Safety Basis Documents:
- Integrated Safety Management Plan
- Radiation Protection plan
- Quality Assurance Plan
- Waste Management Plan
- Emergency Preparedness Plan
- Material Control and Accounting Program Plan
- Removal Action Work Plan
- Radiological Material Release/Transfer Procedure
- Building D&D Verification Procedures
- Identify, collect and provide historical facility related documentation
to D&D Contractor.
- Transmit documentation formally.
- Develop robust set of Work Smart Standards.
- Require project schedule with critical path identified.
- Develop comprehensive, mutually agreed, performance metrics.
- Develop and document understanding of expectation for ESH&Q rigor.
- Make no assumption concerning facility condition.
- Be quantitative not qualitative.
- Define operability.
- Use pre-production research before determining methods for accomplishment.
- Understand the operational aspects of D&D.
- Don’t assume D&D contractor will share DOE’s management paradigms.
Mr. Jack Heier, DOE Idaho Operations, discussed a Department of Justice
News Release, Idaho Man Given Longest-Ever Sentence for
Environment Safety Crime.
In the longest sentence
ever imposed for an environmental
crime, a federal judge ordered an Idaho man to serve
17 years in prison for his crimes that left a 20-year
old employee with permanent brain damage from cyanide
defendant, Allan Elias, also was ordered to pay $6
million in restitution to the victim and his family.
In May 1999, a jury in Pocatello,
Idaho, found that Elias ordered employees of Evergreen
Resources, a fertilizer manufacturing company he owned,
to enter and clean out a 25,000-gallon storage tank
containing cyanide without taking required precautions
to protect his employees.
OSHA inspectors repeatedly had warned Elias
about the dangers of cyanide and explained the precautions
he must take before sending his employees into the
tank, such as giving workers protective gear. The employee was overcome by hydrogen cyanide gas while cleaning
the tank and sustained permanent brain damage as a
result of cyanide poisoning.
Mr. Heier had previous experience with Mr. Elias and
Evergreen Resources earlier in his career as an OSHA
compliance officer and was subpoenaed by the prosecution
to testify in this case. Though Mr. Heier was not called upon to testify,
he recounted to the committee past experience of poor
safety and health performance on the part of this
Mr. Finn adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m.
This page was last updated on June 06, 2012