[Federal Register: December 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 244)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 72451-72520]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20de07-28]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Labor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1915
General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment; Proposed Rule
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1915
[Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675 (formerly OSHA Docket No. S-049)]
RIN 1218-AB50
General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSHA proposes to revise the standards on general working
conditions in shipyard employment. The proposed revisions would update
existing requirements to reflect advances in industry practices and
technology. The proposal also would cross reference general industry
standards either that are already applicable to shipyard employment or
that OSHA intends to apply. Finally, OSHA proposes to add provisions
that would provide protection from hazards not addressed by existing
standards, including provisions on the control of hazardous energy
(lockout/tagout).
DATES: Comments and requests for hearings must be submitted
(postmarked, sent or received) by March 19, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. OSHA-S049-
2006-0675, by any of the following methods:
Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions on-line for making
electronic submissions.
Fax: If your comments, including attachments, do not exceed 10
pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-1648.
Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger or courier service:
You must submit three copies of your comments and attachments to the
OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210;
telephone (202) 693-2350 (OSHA's TTY number is (877) 889-5627).
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger and courier service) are
accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal
business hours, 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., e.t.
Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675). All
comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions you about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
birthdates. For further information on submitting comments, plus
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the "Public
Participation" heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Docket: To read or download comments and materials submitted in
response to this Federal Register notice, go to Docket No. OSHA-S049-
2006-0675 at http://regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at the
address above. All comments and submissions in response to this Federal
Register notice are listed in the http://regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the Web page. All comments and
submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for
inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
For information on reading or downloading exhibits referenced in
this Federal Register notice, see the "References and exhibits" and
"Public Participation" headings in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available
at http://www.regulations.gov. This document, as well as news releases
and other relevant information, also are available at OSHA's Web page
at http://www.osha.gov
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Press inquiries: Kevin Ropp, OSHA, Office of Communications, Room
N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-1999.
For general and technical information: Dorothy Dougherty, Director,
OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Room N-3718, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Regulatory History
III. Pertinent Legal Authority
IV. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard
V. Summary of the Preliminary Economic and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analyses
VI. Environmental Assessment
VII. Federalism
VIII. Unfunded Mandates
IX. OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
X. State Plan Standards
XI. Public Participation
XII. Authority and Signature
XIII. The Proposed Standard
References and Exhibits
In this Federal Register notice, OSHA references documents in
Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675 (formerly OSHA Docket No. S-049) as well
as documents in the following OSHA rulemakings and advisory committee
proceedings, which OSHA is incorporating by reference into the docket
of this rulemaking:
The proceedings of the Shipyard Employment Standards
Advisory Committee (SESAC) (Docket Nos. SESAC-1988 through SESAC-1993);
The proceedings of the Maritime Advisory Committee for
Occupational Safety and Health (Docket Nos. MACOSH-1995 through MACOSH-
2005);
The General Industry Lockout/Tagout rulemaking record
(Docket Nos. S-012, S-012A and S-012B;
The Shipyard Employment Standards rulemaking record
(Docket No. S-024); and
The Field Sanitation rulemaking record (Docket No. H-308).
References to documents in Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675. In this
Federal Register notice, references to documents in Docket No. OSHA-
S049-2006-0675 (formerly OSHA Docket No. S-049) are given as "Ex."
followed by the number of the document. These exhibits are posted in
both Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675 (which is available at http://www.regulations.gov)
and OSHA Docket No. S-049 (which is available at
http://dockets.osha.gov). The referenced exhibits are also available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES
section).
References to documents in the dockets incorporated by reference.
In this Federal Register notice, references to documents in the dockets
listed above that OSHA is incorporating by reference are given as the
docket number followed by the document number. Thus, the reference to
"Docket H-308, Ex. 1" means Exhibit 1 in the Field Sanitation
rulemaking docket. For access to exhibits in OSHA Docket H-308 and the
other dockets above that OSHA is incorporating by reference, go to
dockets.osha.gov or the OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES section).
I. Background
OSHA is proposing to revise and update the existing standards in
subpart F of 29 CFR part 1915 that address hazardous working conditions
in shipyard employment. These standards cover many diverse working
conditions in shipyard employment, including housekeeping, lighting,
utilities, work in confined or isolated spaces, lifeboats, sanitation
and medical services and first aid.
OSHA also proposes to add new requirements to subpart F to protect
employees from hazardous working conditions not currently addressed by
subpart F. These proposed additions include the control of hazardous
energy (lockout/tagout), safe operation and maintenance of vehicles,
accident prevention signs and tags and servicing of multi-piece and
single piece rim wheels.
OSHA adopted the existing subpart F standards in 1972 (37 FR 22458
(10/19/1972)) pursuant to section 6(a) of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.). Section 6(a)
permitted OSHA, within two years of the passage of the OSH Act, to
adopt as an occupational safety or health standard any national
consensus and established Federal standards. The provisions in subpart
F were adopted from existing Federal regulations promulgated under
Section 41 of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act
(LHWCA) (33 U.S.C. 941) as well as national consensus standards.
OSHA believes the revisions and additions to subpart F that it
proposes are necessary and appropriate to protect the safety and health
of shipyard employees. OSHA's reasons for the necessity of the proposed
standard are discussed below.
Hazards
Working in shipyards is one of the riskiest occupations in the
United States. Shipyard employees are at risk due to the nature of
their work, which includes a wide variety of industrial operations,
such as steel fabrication, welding, abrasive blasting, burning,
electrical work, pipefitting, rigging and stripping and coating
applications. They also operate complex or heavy equipment such as
cranes and powered industrial trucks. The hazards associated with these
work activities are heightened because they are often performed
outdoors in all kinds of weather, onboard vessels, in confined or
enclosed spaces below deck, on scaffolds and on busy and crowded docks
filled with equipment and material. The safe coordination of these work
activities is also complicated by the fact that most shipyards are
multi-employer worksites where shipyard employees, ship's crew,
contractors and subcontractors work side-by-side and often on the same
ship's systems at the same time. The combination of these hazards
presents a significant risk of injury to shipyard employees whether
they are working on vessels or at landside operations. As this section
illustrates, OSHA believes the proposed rule will significantly reduce
those risks.
Accident, Fatality and Injury Data
OSHA examined several data sources to identify and characterize the
risks shipyard employees face from the hazards this proposal addresses.
These data show, for example, that the shipyard industry has one of the
highest rates and severity of workplace injury of all private sector
industries.
Fatalities. To identify shipyard fatalities, OSHA reviewed accident
data from OSHA's Integrated Management Information System (IMIS)
accident database (fatal and serious injury requiring hospitalization)
and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Census of Fatal Occupational
Injuries (CFOI). According to the IMIS data, there were 231 fatal
shipyard accidents during the years 1987-2002, which is an average of
15 shipyard fatalities each year (Ex. 13). This estimate is consistent
with CFOI, which reported 155 shipyard fatalities from 1992-2002 or an
average of 14 fatalities per year. According to CFOI data, during most
of those years the fatality rate in shipyard employment was about twice
the rate for all private industry combined, which further demonstrates
the hazardous nature of work in shipyard employment. As discussed
below, many of those shipyard fatalities involved the types of hazards
this rulemaking addresses.
Injuries and illnesses. To estimate the number of shipyard injuries
and illnesses, OSHA used the BLS annual survey of employers, which
produces statistical estimates of occupational injuries and illnesses
by industry and specific characteristics (http://www.bls.gov). From 1992-2002,
BLS data show that the occupational injury and illness rate for
shipyard employment declined from 34.2 per 100 full-time employees in
1992 to 16.6 in 2002. Lost workday injury and illness rates showed a
similar trend, declining from 16.9 in 1993 to 9.3 in 2002 (See Table
1). However, despite these improvements, the industry's injury and
illness rates continue to be more than three times the average private
sector rate of 5.3 for injuries and illnesses combined and 2.8 for lost
workday cases (Table 1).
Using the median number of days away from work per case as an
indicator of severity, the injuries and illnesses shipyard employees
experienced were, on average, more severe than those in the private
sector as a whole as well as in the manufacturing and construction
sectors. In 2002, for example, the median days away from work in the
shipbuilding and repair industry was 15 days per lost workday case,
more than double the private sector median of seven (Table 1). In
addition, a higher percentage of lost workday cases in shipyards
involved lengthy recovery periods. For example, more than one-third
(34%) of shipyard lost workday cases resulted in more than 30 days away
from work compared to one-quarter of private sector cases (Table 1).
Table 1.--2002 Injury and Illness Data Comparisons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lost workday Percentage of Percentage of
Injury and (LWD) injury and LWD cases LWD cases
Industry illness rate per illness rate per Median days away involving more involving more
100 full-time 100 full-time from work than 5 days away than 30 days
employees employees from work away from work
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipbuilding and Repair....................................... 16.6 9.3 15 62.2 34.1
Total Private Sector.......................................... 5.3 2.8 7 55.2 25.1
Manufacturing................................................. 7.2 4.1 8 56.7 26.0
Construction.................................................. 7.1 3.8 10 58.4 28.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Source: BLS)
Need for Agency Action
A detailed examination of OSHA and BLS databases indicates that a
significant percentage of shipyard fatalities and injuries have
resulted from the types of hazardous working conditions the proposed
rule addresses, particularly hazardous energy. OSHA believes that
eliminating or controlling these hazardous conditions will reduce the
risks that shipyard employees face on a daily basis. This section
discusses the types of fatalities and injuries that could have been
prevented if the proposed additions and revisions to subpart F had been
in place. OSHA's preliminary economic analysis, summarized in Section
V, estimates that the proposed rule would have prevented at least 17.8
of the fatalities reported in the IMIS database from 1987 through 2002.
Lockout/tagout. The most extensive provisions in the proposal
address the control of hazardous energy. Exposure to hazardous energy
has resulted in many injuries to shipyard employees. According to a
study by the National Shipbuilding Research Program (NSRP), during a
five-year period there were 10 hazardous energy-related injuries
annually at the seven participating shipyards. (See Ex. 11, NSRP
"Review of Current and Best Practices for Hazardous Energy Control
(Tagout) in Shipyards.") The report concluded that in almost every
case, the injury was the result of multiple failures in the system,
such as failure to identify all hazardous energy sources and to
properly verify deenergization of all sources (Ex. 11, p. 6). This
report suggests that the proposed comprehensive lockout/tagout program
and energy control procedures would be effective in preventing these
types of injuries.
Hazardous energy exposure also has resulted in the death of a
number of shipyard employees. According to BLS data for 1992-2002,
almost one-quarter of shipyard fatalities were types that are often
associated with hazardous energy. BLS CFOI data showed that at least 10
shipyard fatalities (6.3%) resulted from contact with electrical
current and 24 fatalities (16%) occurred because of contact with
objects and equipment, such as being caught in equipment that suddenly
starts up. BLS injury data showed that an even greater percentage of
injuries were associated with those types of accidents. In 2002, for
instance, 30 percent of shipyard injuries involving days away from work
resulted from contact with an object or equipment and almost two
percent resulted from being caught in equipment.
OSHA's IMIS fatal accidents database also confirms that a
significant number of shipyard deaths have resulted from hazardous
energy. From 1987-2002, the IMIS data reported 14 (6%) shipyard
fatalities related to the sudden release of hazardous energy. (See
also, Ex. 11, National Shipbuilding Research Program (NSRP), "Review
of Current and Best Practices for Hazardous Energy Control (Tagout) in
Shipyards.") A review of the IMIS shipyard fatality abstracts
indicates that the proposed lockout/tagout provisions could have
prevented the vast majority (9) of those hazardous energy deaths (see
Section V). The following are some of the shipyard fatalities that the
proposed lockout/tagout provisions could have prevented. (The summary
and explanation of proposed Sec. 1915.89 also discusses a number of
fatalities that could have been prevented by the proposed lockout/
tagout provisions).
A shipyard employee working on a 480-volt distribution center was
fatally electrocuted when the circuit was not properly deenergized and
locked out before the task was started. In a similar case, an employee
was electrocuted installing a fan on an HVAC chiller because the fan
circuit was not deenergized. Instead of verifying that the circuit was
deenergized, the employee had relied on a helper to open the circuit
breaker to deenergize the unit. However, the helper opened the wrong
breaker. In both cases, there was no indication in the IMIS abstract
that the employer had a lockout/tagout program or had established
written energy control procedures, such as procedures for deenergizing
power sources and verifying isolation. The lockout/tagout proposal
would have required both.
In another case in the IMIS database, an employee, who was assigned
to perform maintenance on a high-voltage electric transformer, was
fatally electrocuted when an oil switch to the transformer was left
open. According to a NIOSH Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation
Program (FACE) investigation of the accident, the high-voltage
transformer provided power to numerous shipboard activities, but the
employee's electrical experience had been primarily on low-voltage
equipment (Ex. 14). The investigation revealed that the power panels
were not labeled and no signs, tags or locks had been used on either
the oil switch or circuit breaker. In addition, there may have been
stored energy remaining in the conductors, but no tests were conducted
to verify deenergization. Under the proposed lockout/tagout provisions,
this employer would have been required to have an energy control
program and control procedures in place to ensure that employees
properly deenergize circuits, verify isolation and apply lockout or
tagout systems before starting work (proposed Sec. 1915.89(b)(1), (2)
and (4)).
The investigation also found that, although employees received
general safety training, there was no indication that the victim had
received training on servicing high-voltage equipment and the
supervisor had no electrical training. Moreover, even when the victim
accidentally turned off the wrong power source earlier in the
workshift, leaving the dry dock in the dark, the employee was not
provided with refresher training. Had the proposed lockout/tagout
provisions been in place, it would have ensured that any shipyard
employee servicing high-voltage equipment was an "authorized
employee" who had been trained to recognize hazardous energy sources
and know the specific means and procedures necessary to isolate and
control such energy safely (proposed Sec. 1915.89(b)(7)). The proposed
provisions also would have ensured that employees receive additional
training "whenever the employer has reason to believe, that there are
* * * deficiencies in the employee's knowledge or use of the energy
control procedures" (proposed Sec. 1915.89(b)(7)(iii)).
The proposed lockout/tagout provisions addressing multiple employer
worksites (proposed Sec. 1915.89(e)(2)) and group lockout/tagout
(proposed Sec. 1915.89(e)(3)) also could have prevented several
shipyard fatalities reported in the IMIS database. In one of those
cases, an electrician who was modifying a switchboard was fatally
electrocuted when a ship's crew member, who was not familiar with the
operation of the switchboard breaker, inadvertently energized the
circuit. The proposed provisions would have ensured that the shipyard
employer and ship's officer or master shared information about their
respective lockout/tagout programs. The proposal also would have
ensured that when more than one person is servicing equipment on a
system, that a primary authorized employee is designated to ascertain
the exposure status of individual group members and coordinate affected
work forces to ensure that each member of the group is fully protected
(proposed Sec. 1915.89(e)(3)).
Finally, the lockout/tagout section of this proposal includes an
in-depth discussion of the application of the lockout/tagout standard while
servicing commercial vessels, such as fish processing vessels.
Motor vehicle safety equipment, operation and maintenance. OSHA is
proposing several provisions aimed at reducing the number of shipyard
employees killed and injured in motor vehicle incidents. According to
CFOI data, 27 shipyard employees were killed in transportation
incidents (highway and non-highway) from 1992-2002, which represents
18.5 percent of all fatalities during that period. OSHA's IMIS fatal
accidents data indicated that 12 employees were killed in motor vehicle
incidents in shipyards from 1987-2002. Motor vehicle accidents also
account for a significant number of injuries. From 1992-2001, for
instance, BLS reported that 208 shipyard employees were injured in
transportation accidents that were serious enough to involve days away
from work.
OSHA believes that the proposed motor vehicle safety provisions
could have prevented a significant number of those deaths and injuries.
For example, a review of the IMIS database shows that the proposed
safety belt requirement (proposed Sec. 1915.93(b)(1) and (2)) could
have prevented the death of a shipyard employee who was operating a
mobile crane to lift metal plates from a floating dock. The employee
was killed when the crane overturned and he fell from the cab into the
river and drowned. Had the employee been wearing a safety belt, as the
proposed rule requires, he would have remained safely within the cab
when it overturned. OSHA also believes the proposed safety belt
provision would prevent employees from being crushed or pinned trying
to jump free of a tipping vehicle, one of the major causes of
industrial vehicle fatalities. In 2001, for example, BLS reported that
28 percent (35) of all private industry forklift fatalities (123)
involved tipovers or falls from a moving forklift.
The proposed provisions to protect pedestrians and bicyclists in
shipyards from being hit by motor vehicles (proposed Sec.
1915.93(c)(3)) could have prevented several shipyard fatalities and
injuries reported in the IMIS database. For example, a shipyard
employee riding a bicycle as part of "his regularly assigned tasks"
was killed when a bus traveling on the same shipyard road collided with
him. A shipyard employee walking on a pier was killed when a straddle
lift truck ran over him. While pulling onto the main road on the pier,
the lift truck driver made a wide arc in order to avoid hitting a
forklift truck moving a large container and hit a pedestrian who he had
not seen. In another incident, a shipyard employee suffered fractured
ribs and had to have his spleen removed when he was hit by a forklift
as he was walking along the side of the road in the shipyard. All of
these accidents may have been prevented if the employers had
established dedicated pedestrian/bicycle lanes or provided employees
with reflective vests, two of the options the proposal includes to
protect employees walking and bicycling in shipyards from being hit by
motor vehicles (proposed Sec. 1915.93(c)(3)(i) and (ii)).
Medical services and first aid. The proposed rule includes
revisions to the existing provisions on medical services and first aid,
including revisions addressing the content of first aid training and
location of first aid providers and kits in shipyards (proposed Sec.
1915.88). OSHA believes that the proposed provisions will improve the
chances that injured shipyard employees will survive if an accident or
health crisis (e.g., cardiac or respiratory failure) occurs and are
necessary to reduce fatality rates in the shipyard industry. A review
of the IMIS database for 1987-2002 indicates that as many as 13
fatalities involving cardiac or respiratory arrest may have been
prevented had the proposed first aid provisions been in place.
Accounting for employees at the end of workshifts. Existing
shipyard standards require that employers frequently check on employees
who are working in confined spaces or alone in an isolated work
location (Sec. 1915.94). The proposal adds to the existing standard a
provision requiring employers also to account for these employees at
the end of the workshift (proposed Sec. 1915.84(b)). The purpose of
both the existing and proposed provisions is to ensure that employees
remain safe, go home safe at the end of their workshifts and are
promptly rescued if they are injured. OSHA believes it is necessary to
account for these employees at the end of their workshifts, in part,
because shipyards are commonly comprised of many work locations that
often are spread out over a large area. If an employee is injured while
working alone at a distant work location, he may not be able to summon
help. If the employer does not account for an injured employee at the
end of the workshift, that employee could die from his injuries. The
IMIS database includes a number of fatalities in which the employees'
bodies were not discovered until hours or days later.
A review of the IMIS database, from 1987 to 2002, indicates that
there were at least 13 fatalities that may have been prevented had the
proposed provisions been in effect. The following are a few cases from
that IMIS database. At approximately 10 p.m. during an evening
workshift, a shipyard employee using a forklift truck to move a heavy
tool box on a wet dock is presumed to have fallen through an opening in
the dock and drowned when he got out of the forklift to check on the
load. According to the abstract there were no eye witnesses to the
accident. There is also no indication as to when the employer first
noticed the employee was missing. However, the abstract says that the
employee's body was not removed from the water until the next day.
In another case, the employee was working alone applying a patch
over a pipe opening prior to the time he went missing. There is no
indication as to when the employer discovered the employee was missing
and no indication whether the employee was checked on during or at the
end of his workshift. Approximately one week later his body was
discovered under the water adjacent to the vessel on which he had been
working.
Finally, a shipyard employee was working on an accommodation ladder
on the MV Cape Henry at Pier 27 in San Francisco. It is presumed that
he fell off the ladder or the vessel into the water. Nine days later
his body was discovered floating in Fisherman's Wharf. Again, there is
no indication in the abstract whether the employer regularly checked on
employees or accounted for them at the end of the workshift.
Clarifications. In addition to the shipyard fatalities and injuries
discussed above, OSHA believes that other provisions in the proposal
could also prevent employees from being injured or killed. A number of
proposed provisions clarify existing requirements, which may help
increase employer understanding of and compliance with those
requirements and thereby reduce employee exposure to serious hazards.
Based on the data and discussion above and other information in the
rulemaking record, OSHA believes that there continues to be a
significant risk of death and injury due to hazardous working
conditions in shipyards. As discussed, OSHA believes that the proposed
revisions, additions and clarifications of subpart F are reasonable and
necessary and will substantially reduce that risk for shipyard
employees.
II. Regulatory History
The standards in subpart F have remained essentially unchanged
since they were adopted in 1972 from established Federal occupational
safety and health standards issued under the LHWCA (33 U.S.C. 941).
In 1982, the Shipbuilders Council of America and the American
Waterways Shipyard Conference requested that OSHA: (1) revise and
update the existing shipyard standards, including subpart F; and (2)
consolidate into a single set of shipyard standards those general
industry standards that apply to shipyards, particularly landside
operations. In response to these recommendations, OSHA established the
Shipyard Employment Standards Advisory Committee (SESAC) in November
1988. The purpose of SESAC, which included representatives from
industry, labor and professionals in the maritime community, was to
provide guidance and technical expertise to OSHA about revising the
shipyard standards. SESAC met from 1988 until 1993 to develop
recommendations and provide technical expertise in developing draft
regulatory language for revising the shipyard safety standards. On
April 29, 1993, SESAC unanimously approved final draft recommendations
for revising subpart F to submit to OSHA. (Docket SESAC 1993-2, Ex.
102X, p. 257) (Detailed discussion on SESAC comments and specific
recommendations are presented in the Summary and Explanation section
below.)
In 1995, OSHA established the Maritime Advisory Committee for
Occupational Safety and Health (MACOSH) under section 7 of the OSH Act
(29 U.S.C. 656) to advise the Agency on issues relating to occupational
safety and health standards in the shipyard and marine cargo handling
(longshore) industries. On September 8, 1995, MACOSH discussed and
approved the recommendations and draft regulatory language that SESAC
developed and made additional recommendations, which are discussed in
the Summary and Explanation section below (Docket MACOSH 1995-1, Exs.
2; 102X, pp. 25, 26).
While OSHA is continuing to move toward a single set of standards
for the shipyard industry, OSHA has included in part 1915 cross
references to applicable general industry standards rather than
reprinting those standards in this part. The proposal, for instance,
includes cross references to general industry standards addressing
accident signs and tags and servicing multi-piece and single piece
wheels.
III. Pertinent Legal Authority
The purpose of the OSH Act is to "assure so far as possible every
working man and woman in the nation safe and healthful working
conditions and to preserve our human resources" (29 U.S.C. 651(b)). To
achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor to issue
and enforce occupational safety and health standards. (See 29 U.S.C.
655(a) (authorizing summary adoption of existing consensus and federal
standards within two years of the OSH Act's enactment); 655(b)
(authorizing promulgation of standards pursuant to notice and comment);
and 654(d)(2) (requiring employers to comply with OSHA standards)). A
safety or health standard is a standard "which requires conditions, or
the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods,
operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to
provide safe or healthful employment or places of employment" (29
U.S.C. 652(8)).
A standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate within the
meaning of section 3(8) of the OSH Act if it substantially reduces or
eliminates significant risk; is economically feasible; is
technologically feasible; is cost effective; is consistent with prior
Agency action or is a justified departure; is supported by substantial
evidence; and is better able to effectuate the Act's purposes than any
national consensus standard it supersedes (29 U.S.C. 652). (See 58 FR
16612, 16616 (3/30/1993)).
A standard is technologically feasible if the protective measures
it requires already exist, can be brought into existence with available
technology, or can be created with technology that can reasonably be
expected to be developed. American Textile Mfrs. Institute v. OSHA
(ATMI), 452 U.S. 490, 513 (1981); American Iron and Steel Institute v.
OSHA (AISI), 939 F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir 1991).
A standard is economically feasible if industry can absorb or pass
on the cost of compliance without threatening its long term
profitability or competitive structure. See ATMI, 452 U.S. at 530 n.
55; AISI, 939 F.2d at 980. A standard is cost effective if the
protective measures it requires are the least costly of the available
alternatives that achieve the same level of protection. ATMI, 453 U.S.
at 514 n. 32; International Union, UAW v. OSHA ("LOTO II"), 37 F.3d
665, 668 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
Section 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act authorizes OSHA to include among a
standard's requirements labeling, monitoring, medical testing and other
information gathering and transmittal provisions (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7)).
All safety standards must be highly protective. (See, 58 FR 16614-
16615; LOTO II, 37 F.3d at 668.) Finally, whenever practical, standards
shall "be expressed in terms of objective criteria and of the
performance desired" (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5)).
IV. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard
As mentioned above, OSHA proposes to revise and update the
standards in subpart F to reflect advances in technology and industry
practice and to add requirements that would provide employees with
protection from hazardous working conditions not currently addressed by
the existing OSHA standards. This section explains the revisions and
additions OSHA proposes, including what action these revisions would
require or prohibit and how they differ from the existing standards.
This section also discusses the purposes for these changes and why they
are necessary, and how they will provide employees with protection from
hazardous working conditions in shipyards.
Many of the provisions OSHA proposes were recommended by SESAC.
They represent, to a large extent, industry best practices at the time
SESAC reviewed subpart F. However, where changes in industry practices
and technology have occurred since SESAC finished its review, OSHA has
updated the proposed provisions to reflect those advances. In addition,
the Agency has added or amended some provisions for easier
comprehension and to better protect employees.
A number of the provisions in subpart F were adopted in 1972 from
existing Federal and national consensus standards in effect at the time
(e.g., housekeeping, sanitation, medical services and first aid). Since
then, those consensus standards have been revised and updated, several
times in some cases. OSHA has carefully reviewed the relevant consensus
standards and, where appropriate, proposes to incorporate applicable
requirements of updated and revised standards.
OSHA proposes to consolidate a number of provisions to more clearly
indicate that they apply to shipyard employment and to make them easier
to understand and follow. First, the proposal consolidates requirements
in part 1915 (e.g., housekeeping, sanitation, medical services and
first aid) for which there are also requirements in general industry
(part 1910) that shipyard employers must follow. Although as a general
rule part 1915 standards prevail over any different general industry
standard, general industry standards apply to shipyard employment where
part 1915 standards do not address a particular hazard or condition. For
example, a number of provisions in the general industry sanitation standard
(e.g., potable water, toilet facilities, vermin control) apply to shipyard
employment because the shipyard sanitation standard (Sec. 1915.97) does
not address these issues. OSHA believes that putting all of the sanitation
requirements applicable to shipyard employment into one section will make it
easier for employers to understand and comply with the requirements.
Second, the proposal cross references several general industry
standards that already apply to shipyard employment (e.g., Sec.
1910.144 Safety Color Code for Marking Physical Hazards). Finally, the
proposal consolidates into one section (Sec. 1915.80) the scope and
application provisions for subpart F and clarifies that the proposal
intends to apply the general working condition provisions to all
sectors of shipyard employment (i.e., ship repair, shipbuilding,
shipbreaking and related employment).
As a result of the consolidation, the section numbers in subpart F
would be changed. To prevent confusion, the following table (Table 2)
lists the proposed and corresponding existing provisions, if there is
one that applies:
Table 2.--Table of Proposed Provisions and Corresponding Existing
Provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing rule
Title of provision Proposed rule applicable to
shipyard employment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope and application........... Sec. 1915.80 Each section of
subpart F has a
scope and
application
provision
Housekeeping.................... Sec. 1915.81 Sec. 1915.91 and
Sec. 1910.141
Lighting........................ Sec. 1915.82 Sec. 1915.92
Utilities....................... Sec. 1915.83 Sec. 1915.93
Work in confined or isolated Sec. 1915.84 Sec. 1915.94
spaces.
Vessel radar and radio Sec. 1915.85 Sec. 1915.95
transmitters.
Lifeboats....................... Sec. 1915.86 Sec. 1915.96
Medical services and first aid.. Sec. 1915.87 Sec. 1915.98 and
Sec. 1910.151
Sanitation...................... Sec. 1915.88 Sec. 1915.97 and
Sec. 1910.141
Control of hazardous energy Sec. 1915.89 Sec. 1910.145
(lockout/tagout).
Safety color code for marking Sec. 1915.90 Sec. 1910.144
physical hazards.
Accident prevention signs and Sec. 1915.91 No existing rule
tags.
Retention of DOT markings, Sec. 1915.92 Sec. 1915.100
placards and labels.
Motor vehicle safety equipment, Sec. 1915.93 No existing rule
maintenance, and operation.
Servicing multi-piece and single- Sec. 1915.94 No existing rule
piece rim wheels.
Definitions..................... Sec. 1915.95 No existing rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA proposes to retain a number of provisions from the existing
standards with only minor editorial and technical changes. OSHA
believes, and SESAC agreed, that these provisions are necessary to
provide employees with adequate protection from certain hazardous
working conditions in shipyards. This section does not address those
provisions at length. Rather, the discussion in this section focuses on
the proposed revisions and additions, one of the most important being
the control of hazardous energy.
Finally, OSHA proposes to delete some provisions from subpart F, in
most cases because the hazards these requirements address are not
present in shipyard employment. For example, the existing provision
Sec. 1910.141(f) requires that where working clothes are provided by
the employer and get wet or are washed between shifts, the employer
must ensure that the clothing is dry before reuse. However, information
indicates that the provision is no longer necessary for shipyard
employment because employers now provide disposable protective
clothing.
Where possible, OSHA has expressed the proposed requirements in
performance language. In many cases, OSHA replaced outdated
specifications with language that provides employers with greater
flexibility in determining the most effective strategies for
controlling the hazards in question. The proposal provides employers
with objective criteria, where appropriate, to assist them in complying
with the proposed requirements. For example, OSHA proposes to replace
the list of items that first aid kits must contain, which was adopted
more than 30 years ago and which SESAC said in 1993 was outdated, with
flexible performance-based language and criteria employers must
consider in determining the adequacy of those supplies. OSHA believes
this approach contemplates changes in control strategy and allows for
advances in technology and industry practice, thereby reducing the need
to revise the standard when those changes occur.
OSHA requests comment on all aspects of the proposed rule. In order
to develop the most thorough and useful record possible, OSHA requests
interested persons to provide comments on the questions raised
throughout the preamble and to provide data and reasons to support
those comments.
Section 1915.80 Scope and Application
Each section in existing subpart F contains its own scope and
application provision. Although most of those provisions indicate that
the section applies to shipbuilding, ship repairing, and shipbreaking,
some state that the section, or part(s) of it, is limited to certain
shipyard operations. OSHA proposes to eliminate duplication of these
provisions by consolidating them into one scope and application section
that is applicable to the entire subpart. In addition, as SESAC
recommended (Docket SESAC 1992-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 110-112), OSHA proposes
to apply every section of subpart F uniformly to all of shipyard
employment. "Shipyard employment" is defined in Sec. 1915.4(i) to
mean "ship repairing, shipbuilding, shipbreaking, and related
employment."
The proposal also adds language to clarify OSHA's longstanding
position that subpart F applies to shipyard employment "regardless of
geographic location" of the shipyard activity. OSHA believes this is
necessary to ensure that shipyard employers fully understand that the
proposed subpart F requirements apply wherever employees are performing
"shipyard employment" activities. (OSHA recently added the same
language to the Fire Protection in Shipyards Standard, Sec.
1915.501(b) (69 FR 55668 (9/15/2004)). Thus, if employees are
performing shipyard employment activities, including but
not limited to performing them onboard vessels and vessel sections and
in landside facilities on navigable waters, the proposed requirements
would apply. Likewise, if employees are performing shipyard employment
activities at a location that is not contiguous to a vessel, the
proposed requirements also would apply.
The proposal also clarifies that subpart F applies to any employer,
regardless of whether the employer owns the vessel or shipyard, whose
employees perform shipyard employment activities. The existing policy
will continue to apply under the revised rule. OSHA notes that the
proposed change does not affect the Agency's existing multi-employer
policy. Thus, if a contractor or subcontractor is hired to perform
shipyard employment activities, the proposed provision would apply when
employees are performing those activities. On the other hand, the
proposal would not apply where the contractor's employees perform non-
shipyard employment activities. For example, the proposal would apply
to a contractor whose employees are installing ductwork on vessel
sections or fabricating sheet metal in a shipyard facility, but would
not extend to duct or sheet metal work done for other employers and
customers (e.g., installing heating ductwork for an employer commercial
building). Similarly, the proposal does not extend to outside
contractors or employers who are at the shipyard but not performing
shipyard employment activities, such as vending equipment suppliers or
companies servicing portable toilet facilities. OSHA also notes that
the proposal is not intended to cover inland manufacturing of boats or
manufacturing of parts used to perform shipyard employment activities,
which are more accurately characterized as general industry
manufacturing activities covered by Part 1910 standards (Exs. 16-9,
OSHA Shipyard Employment "Tool Bag" Directive, CPL 02-00-142; Ex. 19,
Letter to John McKnight, National Marine Manufacturers Association (8/
3/2001)).
The proposed consolidation of the scope provisions will simplify
the subpart. It eliminates duplicative provisions and allows OSHA to
remove from each section references to specific shipyard operations.
(This discussion of the consolidation of the scope and application
provisions eliminates the need to repeat, in the Preamble discussion of
each section, that the scope and application provisions are being
deleted from each section). It also ensures that employees will be
provided necessary protection wherever the hazards that the proposed
requirements are intended to address are present. To the extent that
the hazard is not present in a particular area of shipyard employment,
the proposed requirement would not apply. For example, the provisions
in proposed Sec. 1915.85 Vessel Radar and Radio Transmitters would not
apply if a vessel's radar is not being repaired or does not emit any
radiation.
The revisions OSHA proposes would make this subpart consistent with
the scope and application of other subparts in part 1915 that OSHA has
revised, including subpart I Personal Protective Equipment in Shipyard
Employment (61 FR 26322 (05/24/1996)) and subpart B Confined and
Enclosed Spaces and Other Dangerous Atmospheres in Shipyard Employment
(59 FR 37816 (07/25/1994)).
Section 1915.81 Housekeeping
OSHA proposes to retain and combine the housekeeping requirements
applicable to shipyards (Sec. 1910.141(a)(3) and Sec. 1915.91) and
proposes to reorganize and simplify the provisions to make them easier
to understand. For example, the proposal groups together similar
requirements. The proposal also simplifies the language in the existing
housekeeping section. Throughout the proposed section OSHA uses the
term "walking and working surfaces" in place of the list of the
specific areas and surfaces contained in the existing section. In
proposed Sec. 1915.95, OSHA defines "walking and working surfaces"
to mean any surface on which employees gain access or perform their job
duties or upon which employees are required or allowed to walk or work
in the workplace. The definition contains examples of areas and
surfaces that the term "walking and working surfaces" covers and
includes all of the areas and surfaces listed in the existing
housekeeping section. OSHA believes that using the umbrella term should
make the housekeeping section easier to understand.
Proposed paragraphs (a) through (i) establish specific requirements
to ensure walking and working surfaces are free of hazards while
paragraphs (j) and (k) minimize the risk of fire or combustion in
shipyard work areas. OSHA also proposes to add requirements to this
section including provisions on housekeeping procedures and combustible
scrap.
Paragraph (a)--In paragraph (a) OSHA proposes to retain the
existing requirement that the employer maintain good housekeeping
conditions to ensure that walking and working surfaces do not create a
hazard for employees and that these conditions are maintained at all
times. Because of the numerous hazardous materials and substances in
use in shipyard operations, OSHA believes it is necessary to require
shipyard employers to develop and implement good housekeeping practices
to protect employees from harm. As noted above, shipyards experience
many injuries, such as slips and falls, which an effective housekeeping
program will help to reduce.
Paragraphs (b) and (c)--In paragraph (b) OSHA proposes to retain,
with minor editorial revisions, the existing requirement (Sec.
1915.91(a)) that employers ensure that walking and working surfaces
have adequate space for work and passage. To ensure that space is
adequate, OSHA proposes in paragraph (c) to retain the existing
requirement (Sec. 1915.91(a)) that employers ensure walking and
working surfaces such as aisles and passageways be kept clear of tools,
materials and equipment not in use. Specifically, the proposal requires
that equipment not necessary to perform the job in progress not be
stored or located in an area that could interfere with walking and
working surfaces. This provision is consistent with a SESAC
recommendation (Docket SESAC 1992-3, Ex. 104X, pp. 110-112) that only
tools, materials, and equipment "necessary to complete the job in
progress" be allowed to be kept out. OSHA agrees with SESAC that all
other tools, materials, and equipment need to be stored or located so
that they do not interfere with walking and working surfaces and create
hazards such as tripping, slipping or falling. MACOSH also supported
the proposed addition (Docket MACOSH 1995-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 63-64).
Slips, trips and falls frequently result in injuries in shipyards. As
stated above, according to the BLS data for 2002, slips, trips and
falls accounted for 19 percent of all injuries and illnesses involving
days away from work in ship and boat building and repairing. In
addition, floors, walkways, or ground surfaces were cited as the source
for 801 injuries.
Paragraph (d)--In proposed paragraph (d), OSHA is retaining the
existing requirement (Sec. 1910.141(a)(3)(ii)) that employers ensure
that the floor or deck of every work area is maintained, so far as
practicable, in a dry condition. Where wet processes are used, OSHA is
also retaining the existing requirement that drainage be maintained and
that employers provide false floors, platforms, mats or other dry
standing places. Shipyard employment involves many wet processes,
including gas-freeing, painting, hydroblasting and cleaning. This provision
is necessary to prevent employees from being exposed to contaminated water
and from standing for prolonged periods of time in water, both of which may
result in adverse health effects. However, OSHA also recognizes that in some
instances it may not be possible for employers to provide a dry standing place.
Therefore, OSHA proposes to retain the existing language that employers need
only provide dry standing places to the extent that it is practicable to do
so. Where it is not, the proposal retains the existing requirement that
employers are responsible to provide any waterproof footgear that may
be necessary for performing wet processes. Wearing waterproof boots
while performing wet processes will protect employees from hazards
associated with working in standing water that may contain contaminants
and will help to prevent slips and falls.
Paragraph (e)--In paragraph (e), OSHA proposes to combine and
simplify four existing requirements to keep walking and working
surfaces clear of debris, including solid or liquid wastes, and other
objects that may create a safety or health hazard for employees, such
as protruding nails, splinters, loose boards, and unnecessary holes and
openings. Existing Sec. 1915.91(a) requires that staging platforms,
ramps, stairways, walkways, aisles and passageways on vessels or dry
docks be kept clear of debris. Existing Sec. 1915.91(b) requires that
working areas on and immediately surrounding vessels, dry docks,
graving docks and marine railways be kept free of debris. Existing
Sec. 1910.141(a)(4)(ii) requires that all sweepings, solid or liquid
wastes, refuse, and garbage shall be removed in such a manner as to
avoid creating a menace to health and as often as necessary or
appropriate to maintain the place of employment in a sanitary
condition. In addition, existing Sec. 1910.141(a)(3)(iii) requires
that in order to facilitate cleaning, every floor, working place, and
passageway shall be kept free from protruding nails, splinters, loose
boards, and unnecessary holes and openings. The proposal, by using the
term "walking and working surfaces", ensures that all areas in the
shipyard are kept clear. Keeping walking and working surfaces clear
will also help to ensure that employees have adequate room to move
safely to and from work areas and throughout the workplace. OSHA
intends that the term "debris" continue to include bolts, nuts, and
welding rod tips as well as other objects and material that could
create a safety or health hazard to employees, such as scrap metal,
broken equipment, liquid wastes, tools, and empty containers.
Paragraph (f)--In paragraph (f) OSHA is proposing to retain, with
only minor changes, the existing requirement (Sec. 1915.91(d)) that
the employer maintain free access to exits, fire-alarm boxes, and fire-
fighting equipment. OSHA proposes to add fire-call stations to this
list based on SESAC's recommendation that access to this equipment is
also essential for the protection and safe evacuation of employees
(SESAC 1992-3, Ex. 104X, p. 117).
Paragraph (g)--In paragraph (g) OSHA is proposing to retain the
existing requirement (Sec. 1915.91(c)) that slippery conditions on
walkways or working surfaces shall be eliminated as they occur. The
proposal also makes more explicit OSHA's position that ice and snow are
included among the types of slippery conditions that employers must
eliminate under the existing standard by adding language that such
accumulations must be removed as they occur. OSHA believes this
clarifying language is important since members of SESAC raised
questions about whether the existing standard covers these conditions
(Docket SESAC 1992-3, Ex. 104X, pp. 117-119). OSHA requests comment on
this issue.
Paragraph (h)--In paragraph (h) OSHA proposes to retain the
existing provision (Sec. 1915.91(b)) that construction material be
stacked in a manner that does not create a hazard (e.g., trip) to
employees. The proposal includes only non-substantive editorial
changes.
Paragraph (i)--In paragraph (i) OSHA is proposing to retain the
existing requirement (Sec. 1915.91(a)) that hoses and electrical
service cords be hung over or placed under walking and working
surfaces, or be covered by crossovers to prevent injury to employees
and damage to the hoses and cords. The proposal contains only minor
editorial changes for clarity.
Paragraph (j)--In paragraph (j) OSHA proposes to retain the
existing requirements (Sec. 1915.91(e)) that flammable substances such
as paint thinners, solvents, rags and waste be stored in covered fire-
resistant containers when not in use.
Paragraph (k)--Proposed paragraph (k) adds a requirement that
combustible scrap be removed from the work area as soon as possible to
reduce fire hazards. Shipyards have many small fires that are often due
to the accumulation of combustible scrap materials. If combustible
scrap is allowed to accumulate in areas where hot work such as welding
and cutting are performed, sparks generated by that work could ignite
the scrap. Fire prevention helps eliminate the hazards created by the
presence of combustible materials. OSHA recently published a fire
prevention standard (29 CFR Part 1915, subpart P) that contains fire
prevention measures that must be taken before and during hot work (69
FR 55668-55708, (9/15/2004)). The proposed requirement would reduce
fire hazards further and improve fire protection in shipyards.
Section 1915.82--Lighting
This section proposes minimum requirements for illumination
throughout shipyard employment. Many of the proposed provisions are
retained from the existing requirements in Sec. 1915.92. However, the
proposal reorganizes them for clarity into the following three
paragraphs: (a) General Requirements; (b) Temporary Lights; and (c)
Handheld Portable Lights.
Paragraph (a) General Requirements--Proposed paragraph (a) sets
forth requirements that apply to lighting in all areas of shipyard
employment. The proposed general requirements would apply regardless of
whether permanent or temporary lights are used. The lighting intensity
levels that would be required by table F-1 would not apply to emergency
lighting or portable handheld lights.
In paragraph (a)(1) OSHA is proposing to establish minimum
illumination requirements for specific areas and work activities in
shipyard employment to ensure that employers have lighting that allows
employees to safely perform work tasks. For instance, proposed Table F-
1 specifies that general landside areas such as corridors and walkways
that employees pass through would be required to have an illumination
intensity of at least five lumens (foot candles). However, OSHA
believes that higher illumination levels (i.e., 10 lumens) are
necessary to work safely in landside areas such as machine and
carpentry shops. In these areas employees may be using hazardous tools
and equipment and performing precision work. Likewise, higher
illumination levels (i.e., 10 lumens) are necessary in warehouses since
it may be necessary for employees to read warning labels on flammable
or hazardous substances and to safely operate lift trucks and other
equipment.
According to the IMIS database, there have been four fatalities
that may have been prevented had the employees been working in an area
that was provided with adequate illumination. In one incident, an
employee stepped into an unguarded opening in the floor of a dark cargo
deck and fell almost 20 feet to his death at the bottom of the cargo hold.
At the time of the accident, the employee was walking across the dark deck
towards an open doorway, which provided the only illumination of the area.
In another case, an employee climbing down a ladder in an elevator shaft
that was dimly lit, fell 50 feet to his death. It is unclear whether the
employee could even see the bottom of the 130-foot shaft as he was
descending. In another case, an employee was electrocuted when he was
performing electrical repair work at night in a poorly illuminated
area. An accident investigation found there was "inadequate lighting"
at the location where the employee was working (Ex. 14). Although the
investigation confirmed that the controlling circuit breaker was
closed, another switch was found in an open position, possibly because
there was not enough light to read the switch. The existing rule
specifies that work areas must be "adequately illuminated" (Sec.
1915.92(a)). The proposed rule clarifies the existing requirement by
setting forth specific illumination levels for various shipyard work
locations (proposed Sec. 1915.82 Table F-1). Had the employee's work
location been lit to the proposed levels, the employee may have been
able to see that the oil switch was still open and close it prior to
starting his repair work.
SESAC recommended that OSHA add specific illumination requirements
to this section (Docket SESAC-1992-1, Ex. 100X, 1992, p. 113), and the
Agency agrees that the table provides useful and simple assistance for
employers. The illumination specifications in proposed Table F-1 are
drawn from illumination tables in the Construction Illumination (Sec.
1926.56) and Hazardous Waste Operations (Sec. 1910.120) standards, and
in the national consensus standard for industrial lighting (Ex. 3-8,
ANSI/IESNA RP-9-01-2001 Recommended Practice for Lighting in Industrial
Facilities). The proposal revises and simplifies the tables from those
standards to make Table F-1 more applicable to shipyard employment
conditions and activities.
OSHA is proposing that each area of the workplace be illuminated
according to the following intensities. In general areas, such as
exits, accessways, stairs and walkways, the area must be illuminated
with at least 3 lumens on vessels and vessel sections and 5 lumens on
landside. In areas such as landside tunnels, shafts, vaults, pumping
stations and underground work areas, and all assigned work areas on any
vessel or vessel section, the area must be illuminated to at least 5
lumens. Landside work areas such as machine shops, electrical equipment
rooms, carpenter shops, lofts, tool rooms, warehouses, outdoor work
areas, changing rooms, showers, sewered toilet facilities and all
eating, drinking and break areas must be illuminated to 10 lumens.
First aid stations, infirmaries and offices must be illuminated to 30
lumens.
OSHA notes that the Longshoring standard, 29 CFR 1918.92(a),
requires generally that illumination for cargo transfer operations be
of a minimum light intensity of five lumens. Where work tasks require
more light to be performed safely, supplemental lighting must be
provided. That approach does not provide the guidance that SESAC
requested while proposed Table F-1 provides for those situations in
which supplemental lighting may be necessary. OSHA does not intend to
require that employers provide additional lighting where natural light
provides the necessary illumination level. However, where natural light
does not provide the required level (e.g., at dusk), the employer must
provide additional lighting and Table F-1 specifies the appropriate
minimum levels of illumination.
OSHA solicits comments on the proposal as well as alternative
approaches such as the one used in the Longshoring Standard or the
requirements of the ANSI/IESNA standard. Are the proposed lighting
intensities adequate? Does the table adequately address all areas of
shipyard employment? If not, what areas need to be added?
In paragraph (a)(2), OSHA proposes to retain unchanged the existing
requirement (Sec. 1915.92(e)) that matches and open flame devices may
not be used as sources of light. OSHA proposes to place this provision
with the general requirements to reinforce its intent that matches and
open flames are not to be used for light for any purpose, including
emergencies, or anywhere in the shipyard, regardless of whether
permanent, temporary or handheld portable lighting is available. Using
matches and open flame devices, such as burning torches, for lighting
or heat is not safe or practical for a number of reasons. They are
unreliable, could be blown out easily, could endanger employees by
creating a fire hazard, and do not provide adequate lighting
intensities.
SESAC also recommended adding a requirement that only a "qualified
person" be permitted to replace or cap unguarded, damaged bulbs that
have exposed filaments (Docket SESAC 1991, Ex. 100X, p. 84). OSHA has
not adopted this suggestion, because the Agency believes that the
existing and other proposed standards address this hazard. The existing
and proposed provisions requiring temporary lights to be either
completely recessed or equipped with guards reduces the electrical
hazard created by an exposed light bulb filament, and the electrical
safe work practices of Sec. 1910 subpart S that apply to temporary
lights powered from landside sources address the hazards to employees
repairing the temporary lights.
OSHA requests comment on this recommendation, and whether it is
needed, in light of other existing and proposed regulatory provisions
that deal with lighting, electrical safety, and guarding of temporary
lights.
Paragraph (b) Temporary Lights--Proposed paragraph (b) retains,
with minor editorial changes, the existing provisions on temporary
lights (Sec. 1915.92(f)), including light guards, grounding,
insulation, and splicing.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1) is similar to the existing requirement
(Sec. 1915.92(b)(1)) that temporary lights that do not have bulbs that
are "deeply" recessed must have guards to prevent accidental contact.
Guarding of non-recessed bulbs is necessary to protect employees from
being burned, or cut by broken bulbs, and to prevent combustible
materials from igniting. However, paragraph (b)(1) proposes to require
that temporary lights be guarded if they are not "completely"
recessed. The existing provision only requires guarding if lights are
not "deeply" recessed. Unless a temporary light is completely
recessed, there is a risk that the light could be damaged or broken,
thus creating a hazard for employees (e.g., electrical, laceration,
burn). A guard is necessary to control those hazards. OSHA believes the
proposed language provides employers with clearer and more accurate
guidance on when the hazards this provision addresses are present and
must be controlled. OSHA requests comment on the proposed provision.
What is your current practice? Should OSHA require that all temporary
lights be guarded?
Paragraph (b)(2) proposes that employers equip temporary lights
with electric cords "with sufficient capacity to carry the electric
load." The existing standard (Sec. 1915.92(b)(2)) requires the use of
"heavy duty" electric cords. The OSHA Construction Electrical
standards are similar to the existing standard, requiring that cords
for portable tools and appliances be designed for "hard or extra-hard
usage" (Sec. 1926.405(a)(2)(j)). The construction standard includes a
note listing various types of hard or extra-hard cords that meet the
National Electrical Code (ANSI/NEPA 70, Article 400, Table 400-4).
OSHA believes the proposed language more accurately identifies the
type of cord employers must provide to ensure employees are not exposed
to electrical hazards, and thus, provides greater protection for
employees. The fact that a cord is "heavy duty" does not necessarily
mean that it has sufficient capacity to carry the electric load. In
addition, OSHA believes the proposal provides employers with greater
flexibility in meeting the requirements of the standard. The proposal
ensures that employers may use whatever type of cord is sufficient to
safely carry the electric load.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3) retains unchanged the existing
requirements (Sec. 1915.92(b)(2)) that connections and insulation used
on temporary lights be maintained in a safe condition. Implicit in this
provision is the requirement that the employer check to see that
connections and insulation are in proper working order and replace them
when they are broken, cracked or damaged.
In paragraph (b)(4), OSHA proposes to clarify the existing
requirement (Sec. 1915.92(b)(2)) to prohibit temporary light
stringers, as well as temporary lights, from being suspended solely by
their electric cords, unless they are designed by the manufacturer to
be used in that way. When any type of lights and wiring are not
suspended properly, placing them under tension the manufacturer did not
design the electric cord to take, the cord can fray, break, or become
damaged.
Proposed paragraphs (b)(5) and (6) retain, with non-substantive
changes, the existing requirements in Sec. 1915.92(f). Proposed
paragraph (b)(5) requires that lighting stringers not overload branch
circuits. Proposed paragraph (b)(6) requires that branch circuits be
equipped with over-current protection whose capacity does not exceed
the rated current carrying capacity of the cord used. OSHA believes
that both measures are necessary to provide an adequate measure of
safety from electrical and fire hazards associated with circuit
overloading.
Proposed paragraph (b)(7) revises the existing standard by
requiring that splices have insulation that "exceeds" that of the
cable. The existing provision allows the use of splices where the
insulation is "equal" to that of the cable. OSHA believes the
revisions are necessary to ensure that employees are fully protected
from electrical hazards if splices are used. When a splice is necessary
on an electrical cord, the current may create a surplus of energy or
"hot spot" at the splice junction that is greater than the current
for which the cord was designed. Requiring that the rated capacity of
the insulation exceed the capacity of the cable ensures that employees
will be protected if they touch or come into contact with the splice.
The additional insulation capacity also ensures that hot spots do not
start burning or ignite combustible materials in the area.
OSHA requests comment on the proposed revision. Does the proposed
requirement provide sufficient protection for employees? Is weather a
factor in determining what insulation to use? In your establishment and
industry, what practices are followed regarding insulation of splices?
Should OSHA propose a more specific requirement, for example that
splices have insulation at 1\1/2\ times greater than that of the cable?
Proposed paragraph (b)(8) retains the existing requirement (Sec.
1915.92(c)) that exposed, non-current-carrying metal parts of temporary
lights be grounded. It also retains the requirement that grounding be
provided either through a third wire in the cable that contains the
circuit conductors or through a separate wire that is grounded at the
source of the current. OSHA also proposes to include the existing
provision requiring that grounding be done in accordance with the
requirements of Sec. 1915.132(b) subpart H, Tools and Related
Equipment.
Paragraph (c) Handheld Portable Lights--Proposed paragraph (c)
addresses the use of handheld portable lights in work areas that do not
have permanent or temporary lighting or such lighting is not working or
is not readily accessible.
To ensure that employees do not enter unlighted or dark areas,
paragraph (c)(1) requires that the employer provide employees with
handheld portable lights and ensure that such lights are used whenever
employees enter those areas. The proposal simplifies the current
requirements (Sec. 1915.92(d) and (e)), by combining them into one
provision and clarifying that the requirement is applicable to all
unlighted areas in shipyards, regardless of whether they are on
vessels, vessel sections or landside.
In response to a MACOSH recommendation (Ex. 1-2), proposed
paragraph (c)(1) also clarifies in objective terms the existing
prohibition that employees not enter "dark spaces" without handheld
portable lights. The proposal replaces that term with the requirement
that employers provide and ensure handheld portable lights are used to
enter or work in any area that (1) does not have permanent or temporary
lighting, (2) where such lighting is not working, or (3) where such
lighting is not readily accessible. "Readily accessible," for
purposes of this provision, means that the light switch or other means
of activation is located in close proximity to the entrance to the
area. For example, where an employee would have to travel across a long
work area or climb steps in the dark to turn on permanent lights, those
lights are not readily accessible. In such cases, the employee would
have to use a handheld portable light to enter the area. OSHA requests
comment on the proposed provision. In your establishment, when are
employees provided with and required to use handheld portable lights to
enter an area? Are there other situations where handheld portable
lights are needed?
In three different fatalities reported in the IMIS database,
employees who were working in areas where the lighting was not working,
fell to their deaths walking in dark areas. In one instance, an
employee who was trying to restore power to the temporary lighting
stepped off of the coaming and fell approximately 25 feet to the bottom
of the hold.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) is similar to the existing requirement
(Sec. 1915.92(d)) that where temporary lighting from sources outside
the vessel or vessel section is the only means of illumination, the
employer shall ensure that handheld portable lights are available to
provide illumination for safe movement of employees. This provision is
needed because temporary lighting could fail, making it difficult and
hazardous for employees exiting an area of the vessel. The proposal
requires that the employer ensure that the portable lights are handheld
so employees are able to take the lights with them to light their way
as they move about and exit the space safely. The proposal also makes
explicit that the employer must ensure that handheld portable lights
are readily available in the immediate area where employees are
working. Implicit in the proposal is the obligation that the employer
provide handheld portable lights in numbers that are adequate to ensure
that all employees are able to move about and exit the area safely.
OSHA requests comment on the proposed provision. Should OSHA apply this
provision to any area where landside or shore-based lighting provides
the only illumination? Should OSHA include an exception to the rule
when natural sunlight suffices?
Proposed paragraph (c)(3) retains and simplifies the existing
requirement (Sec. 1915.92(e)) on the use of handheld portable lights
in any area that is not gas-free. In such areas, the proposal would
require that the employer ensure that only "explosion-proof, self-
contained" handheld portable lights are used (or other equipment
approved by a nationally recognized testing laboratory (NRTL)).
Although the existing standard requires the same, stakeholders must go
to another section of part 1915 (Sec. 1915.13(b)(9)) to find out what
type of lights they must provide when the area is not gas-free. The
proposal adds the language from the cross-referenced section, thus
eliminating the need to look to the other section. The proposal also
carries forward the note to existing Sec. 1915.13(b)(9) that equipment
approved by a NRTL for the class and division of the location to be
used will meet the requirements of this paragraph. (OSHA notes that the
proposed requirement would apply in non-gas-free areas regardless of
whether proposed paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) also apply.)
Section 1915.83 Utilities
The proposed section on utilities retains, with minor
clarifications, the existing requirements of Sec. 1915.93 and
reorganizes them for clarity into four paragraphs: (a) Steam supply
systems; (b) Steam hoses; (c) Electric shore power; and (d) Heat lamps.
SESAC recommended retaining these provisions and did not propose any
changes (Docket SESAC 1992-3, Ex. 104X, pp. 88-96). The Agency agrees
that these provisions are necessary to protect employees from hazards
associated with unchecked release of steam and with excessive wearing,
tearing, and chafing of steam hoses that could compromise the integrity
of components.
Paragraph (a) Steam Supply System--Proposed paragraph (a) requires
that the employer ensure that the vessel's steam piping system has a
safe working pressure prior to supplying steam from an outside source
to the vessel.
In paragraph (a) OSHA proposes to delete the existing requirement
that employers must ascertain the steam system working pressure from
"responsible vessel's representatives, having knowledge of the
condition of the plant." In its place, OSHA proposes to provide
employers with greater flexibility in determining the most effective
way to meet the requirements of this provision, while keeping employers
responsible for ensuring that the steam system is safe before supplying
steam from an outside source. Employers are free to ascertain the
critical information from a responsible vessel's representative, a
contractor or any other person who is qualified by training, knowledge
or experience to make that determination.
In paragraphs (a)(1) through (3), OSHA proposes to simplify the
existing requirements (Sec. 1915.93(a)(1)) for outside systems that
supply steam to a vessel's steam piping system. Proposed paragraph
(a)(1) requires that a pressure gauge and a relief valve be installed
at the point where the steam hose of the outside steam source joins a
vessel's steam piping system. Proposed paragraph (a)(2) requires that
the relief valves of outside steam systems be set to relieve excess
steam and be capable of relieving steam at a pressure that does not
exceed the safe working pressure of the vessel's steam piping system in
its present condition. Proposed paragraph (a)(3) requires that there
must not be any means of disconnecting the relief valve from the system
that it protects.
In paragraph (a)(4), OSHA proposes to revise the existing
requirement (Sec. 1915.93(a)(1)) on visibility and accessibility of
pressure gauges and relief valves of steam supply systems by adding a
requirement that such gauges and valves also be "kept in legible
condition." OSHA believes this addition will address concerns SESAC
members raised that gauges and valves often cannot be read because they
are too dirty to be readable or the print is too small (Docket SESAC
1992-2, Ex. 102X, pp. 94-96). OSHA agrees that gauges must be visible,
accessible and legible in order to determine accurately whether the
working pressure of the steam supply system is safe.
In paragraph (a)(5), OSHA proposes to add a requirement that relief
valves be positioned or placed in a location where they will not cause
injury if they are activated. For example, orienting or positioning the
relief valve to vent away from employees is one way to protect them
from being scalded and burned if a valve is tripped by high pressure.
Paragraph (b) Steam Hoses--Proposed paragraph (b) retains, with
some revisions, the existing requirements for steam hoses (Sec.
1915.93(a)(2)-(4)). Proposed paragraph (b)(1) requires that the
employer ensure that all steam hoses and fittings have a safety factor
of at least five--which is the same safety factor as in the existing
standard (Sec. 1915.93(a)(2)).
In paragraph (b)(2), OSHA proposes to revise the existing
requirement (Sec. 1915.93(a)(3)) on hanging steam hoses in bights. The
existing rule requires that the weight of the steam hoses must be
"relieved by appropriate lines" to prevent chafing. The proposal
requires that "short bights" be used when hanging steam hoses. OSHA
believes the proposed language more clearly and directly specifies the
measures necessary to prevent chafing and reduce tension on the hose
and its fittings. SESAC recommended this change (Docket SESAC 1992-3,
Ex. 104X, p. 123) because they said the use of short bights better
protects steam hoses from damage.
Proposed paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) retain and divide into
separate provisions the existing requirements to protect steam hoses
from damage and to protect employees from injury from steam hoses
(Sec. 1915.93(a)(4)). In paragraph (b)(3), OSHA proposes that steam
hoses be protected from damage. Steam hoses can be damaged when
equipment and material are moved through walking and working areas.
Employees could be seriously injured if a damaged hose suddenly
releases steam.
Proposed paragraph (b)(4) revises the existing requirement that
steam hoses and temporary piping passing through walking or working
areas be shielded to protect employees from injury due to accidental
contact. The existing provisions only require shielding of steam hoses
and piping that pass through "normal work areas" (Sec.
1915.93(a)(4)). The proposed language expands coverage and provides
employees with greater protection because it ensures that hoses and
piping passing through areas and spaces where employees walk or pass
through to reach work areas are also shielded to protect employees.
Paragraph (c) Electric Shore Power--In paragraph (c) the Agency
proposes to retain, with minor revisions, the existing requirements
(Sec. 1915.93(b)) addressing the actions employers must take prior to
energizing a vessel's circuits when electricity is supplied from a
landside power source. OSHA believes that the proposed performance
language improves the clarity of the requirements. For example, the
proposal changes the paragraph title to "Electric Shore Power" from
"Electric Power" to emphasize that the provisions address the actions
that are necessary to protect employees from the hazards of remote
power carried by electric cables or wires onto a vessel, which differ
from other electrical hazards such as hand-held powered tools.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1) retains unchanged the existing
requirement (Sec. 1915.93(b)(1)(i)) that, prior to energizing the
vessel's circuits, employers ensure the vessel is grounded if it is in
dry dock.
In paragraph (c)(2), OSHA proposes to revise the existing
requirement (Sec. 1915.93(b)(1)(ii)) to require that, prior to
energization, employers ensure that circuits are in safe condition. The
proposal also deletes the existing language requirement that employers
ascertain such information from a "responsible vessel's
representative." OSHA believes the proposal provides employers with
greater flexibility to determine the most effective procedure for
checking the safety of circuits.
In paragraph (c)(3), OSHA proposes to retain unchanged the existing
requirement (Sec. 1915.93(b)(1)(iii)) that circuits to be energized
must be equipped with overcurrent protection that does not exceed the
rated current-carrying capacity of the conductors.
Paragraph (d) Heat Lamps--Proposed paragraph (d) would require that
all heat lamps, including the face, be equipped with surround-type
guards to prevent contact with the bulb, which could result in employee
burns or the igniting of combustible material. The proposal expands the
existing requirement (Sec. 1915.93(c)), which is limited to infrared
heat lamps and does not fully address contact hazards since it does not
require that the lamp face be guarded. OSHA believes these changes are
necessary because shipyards use a variety of heat lamps and because
fires are a significant source of accidents onboard vessels. In
addition, employees can be seriously burned if they come in contact
with a lamp face, which the guarding will prevent.
Section 1915.84 Work in Confined or Isolated Spaces
The proposal retains, with revisions, the existing requirements
(Sec. 1915.94) to protect employees working in confined spaces or
alone in isolated locations. The proposal also retains the existing
exception in Sec. 1915.51(c)(3) for welding, cutting and heating in
confined spaces where, under certain conditions, an employee must be
stationed outside the confined space to maintain communication and
render aid if necessary. After reviewing the existing rule, SESAC
recommended retaining the requirements (Docket SESAC 1992-2, Ex. 102X,
p. 99). OSHA agrees with SESAC that these provisions are necessary to
reduce employee deaths in shipyard employment.
Since 1987, thirteen fatalities have been reported in the OSHA IMIS
database where employees were working alone in isolated areas in
shipyards and were not discovered until after they had died from their
injuries (Ex. 13). Following are some of those incidents.
In 2002, an employee was working alone in the plenum on
the starboard side of the A/B deck on a Navy vessel. Management stated
that no one had checked on him often enough to notice he was missing
until someone noticed his body floating in the water nearby.
In 2000, an employee was working on the accommodation
ladder on the MV Cape Henry when he apparently fell and drowned. He was
not found for 11 days.
In 2000, a crew was working on a cargo transfer crane
barge welding metal grommets under the crane tracks on the deck of the
barge. One employee climbed into a hold and was overcome by lack of
oxygen. The employee was eventually found and later died.
In 1998, a five-man crew was working on a barge, refitting
it for use on the Panama Canal. One of the employees was working alone
on the port side of the vessel installing the pilot house when he fell
into the water. The remainder of the crew did not know that the
employee had been missing until they found him dead in the water at a
later time.
In 1995, an employee was working alone as a shipyard dock
watchman when he apparently fell from the gangway between the ship and
the dock wall to the bottom of the dry dock. The unconscious employee
was not found until the relief watchman came on duty and summoned help.
The emergency team who arrived found the employee suffering from head
and limb fractures and internal injuries. The employee later died of
those injuries.
In 1993, an employee was killed working alone while
welding an overhead lap of steel plate to the underside of a vessel in
dry dock. While standing on a concrete dry dock apron, approximately 14
feet wide by 49 feet long, the employee apparently walked off the end
of it into the water and drowned. A coworker had gone home to take care
of personal business, and there was no one there to rescue the
employee.
In 1992, two employees were cutting bulkheads using a
torch in a small compartment on a drilling rig. The hose failed just
inside the manways and ignited, trapping both employees inside the
compartment until the end of the shift, about one hour. There were no
scheduled checks on these employees, and one employee died as a result.
Paragraph (a)--Proposed paragraph (a) retains the requirement that
the employer make frequent checks during each workshift to ensure the
safety of any employee working in a confined space or alone in an
isolated location. There are many ways employers can comply with this
requirement. One method is using two-way radios. Another is frequent
visits by the employer or employer's designee to the confined space or
the isolated area. If visits to the work area are used, it is essential
that the employer have a visual check of the employee rather than
relying on power tool noise. Some power tools can continue to run even
after an employee is injured or disabled.
Paragraph (b)--In paragraph (b) OSHA proposes to add a new
requirement that the employer, at the end of each shift, account for
each employee who is working in a confined space or alone in an
isolated location. This provision would ensure that employers ascertain
that each employee has returned safely from working in those areas, and
if not, to take immediate action to locate the missing employee to
render first aid or any other needed assistance. OSHA added this
provision after reviewing shipyard fatality reports that indicated some
injured employees were not discovered until long after their shifts had
ended. OSHA recognizes that this provision may not prevent every
fatality associated with confined spaces and isolated work areas, but
the Agency believes it will help to increase survivability when an
accident or injury occurs.
OSHA requests comment on the proposed provision. Specifically, OSHA
requests comment on whether the section should be limited to employees
working alone in either a confined or isolated space. Should OSHA
address the hazards associated with working in confined spaces in
subpart B confined and enclosed spaces instead of subpart F? In your
establishment and industry, are employees working in confined spaces or
alone in isolated spaces checked frequently during the workshift and
accounted for at the end of the workshift? OSHA requests data and
information on any injuries, fatalities, or near-misses that have
occurred during the last five years due to an employee working in a
confined space or alone in an isolated area. If any incidents have
occurred, what measures have been instituted to ensure that employees
working in these areas are safe?
OSHA also requests comment on whether the section should require
that employers establish a system or some form of a signal to indicate
when a single employee enters a confined space or a cofferdam to
perform work. For example, should OSHA require employers to have a
system where employees leave their picture identification (or some
other easily identifiable flag) outside the entrance to alert other
employees that someone is inside working?
Section 1915.85 Vessel Radar and Radio Transmitters
The proposed section retains, with minor revisions, the existing
requirements in Sec. 1915.95 to protect employees from hazards (e.g.,
hazardous energy, radiation) associated with radar and radio
transmitters onboard vessels. Although the scope of the proposed
section is expanded to apply to shipbreaking, OSHA notes that it is
very unlikely that radar and other radiation emitting equipment are
still operational when shipbreaking operations are performed.
Therefore, if the hazards this section seeks to address are not
present, the requirements would not apply.
Paragraph (a)--Proposed paragraph (a) revises the existing
requirement (Sec. 1915.95(a)) to ensure that no employee, whether
radio repair technician or other employee, is allowed to work on the
radar, radio transmitter, mast, king post, or other area closely
located, unless the radar and radio transmitter are secured and made
incapable of releasing hazardous energy or emitting radiation. Although
the existing provision prohibits work in areas near the radar or radio
transmitter unless the equipment is made incapable of emitting
radiation, the provision does not address all the hazards of radio and
radar transmitters including the energization of equipment. For
example, an employee working aloft on a mast could be injured or even
killed if a rotating radio antenna moves and strikes the employee.
Paragraph (b)--Proposed paragraph (b) revises the existing
provision to require that prior to servicing, repairing or testing any
radar or radio transmitter, the employer must ensure that hazardous
energy is controlled in accordance with the proposed requirements of
Sec. 1915.89 Control of Hazardous Energy. The existing provision only
requires that the equipment be "appropriately tagged" (Sec.
1915.95(a)). However, OSHA believes that more detailed lockout/tagout
procedures are needed to ensure that employees are fully protected from
the movement or start up of equipment and the release of hazardous
energy. Tagging the equipment without complying with the rest of the
proposed lockout/tagout program and procedures does not ensure that
employees will be fully protected, especially those working in multi-
employer worksites or in situations where ship's crew are present.
The additional protections in proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) are
necessary for two reasons. First, any employee, including a repair
technician, could be injured or killed if the radar or radio
transmitter releases energy or if radiation is emitted from the radar
system while the employee is working on or near that equipment. The
proposed revision provides uniform protection for all employees working
on or near such equipment. Second, this revision would ensure that
employees servicing radar systems and radio transmitters follow the
procedures for controlling hazardous energy sources (lockout/tagout) in
proposed Sec. 1915.89 to protect themselves and other employees
working in the area. The Agency believes that shipyards generally
follow these precautions currently, and thus this provision would not
alter work practices in this area.
Paragraph (c)--Proposed paragraph (c) retains unchanged the
existing provision (Sec. 1915.95(b)) requiring that the employer
schedule testing of radar or radio at a time when (1) no work is in
progress aloft, or (2) personnel can be cleared a "minimum safe
distance" from the danger area. The proposal also retains the
requirement that the employer follow the minimum safe distance
established for the type, model, and power of the equipment. SESAC
recommended retaining the existing provisions (Docket SESAC 1992-1, Ex.
100X, pp. 118-130; Docket SESAC 1992-2, Ex. 102X, pp. 97-99).
SESAC also recommended that OSHA include sonar testing and repair
in this section (Docket SESAC 1992-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 118-130). OSHA
requests comments on whether the testing and repair of sonar should be
included. What are the potential hazards to employees in testing and
repairing sonar? In your establishment and industry, have employees
been injured, killed, or exposed to radiation while testing, repairing
or working near sonar equipment? What precautions are taken to ensure
that employees are protected from these hazards?
Section 1915.86 Lifeboats
The proposed section retains and revises the existing requirements
(Sec. 1915.96) for working in or on lifeboats. Several lifeboat
fatalities have occurred in the shipbuilding and repair industry. In
1993, for example, two employees being hoisted in a lifeboat were
thrown into a river and drowned because the boat was not adequately
secured. When the boat was released the hoist lines were not sufficient
to bear the weight and shock of the falling lifeboat. In 2004, three
employees being lifted onto a newly-constructed floating oil rig were
dropped when the rig's sternhook failed, killing one employee and
seriously injuring the two others. The proposal prohibits hoisting
employees in lifeboats under any circumstances. Such a requirement
would have prevented these accidents.
Paragraph (a)--Proposed paragraph (a) simplifies the existing
provision (Sec. 1915.96(a)) to emphasize that the employer must ensure
that before employees work in or on a lifeboat, either in a stowed or
suspended position, that the lifeboat is secured independently of the
releasing gear. Securing the lifeboat prevents it from falling if the
releasing gear is accidentally tripped or the davits move. It also
prevents lifeboats that are stowed on chocks from capsizing.
Paragraph (b)--Proposed paragraph (b) expands the protection
afforded by the existing provision (Sec. 1915.96(b)) by prohibiting
employees from being in a lifeboat at any time while it is being
hoisted. The existing requirement only prohibits employees from being
in lifeboats when they are hoisted "into the final stowed position."
As the discussion of fatal shipyard accidents shows, the hazards
associated with the hoisting of lifeboats (e.g., falling) are present
any time they are hoisted. The proposed provision will provide
employees with protection whenever the hazard is present. OSHA requests
comments on the proposed revision.
Paragraph (c)--Proposed paragraph (c) retains the existing
requirement (Sec. 1915.96(c)) that the employer not permit employees
to work on the outboard side of any lifeboat that is stowed on its
chocks unless the lifeboat is secured to prevent it from swinging
outboard. If the lifeboat is not secured prior to employees working on
the outboard side of it, the lifeboat could swing out and strike the
employee, causing him or her to fall.
Section 1915.87 Medical Services and First Aid
Proposed Sec. 1915.87 sets out requirements for medical services,
first aid, and lifesaving equipment. Shipyard employment has high
accident rates. The provisions in this section are intended to prevent
workplace accidents from resulting in fatality and serious injury by
increasing the survivability of life-threatening injuries and
mitigating the severity of injuries.
The proposal combines and revises, where necessary, the existing
standards on medical services and first aid that are applicable to
shipyards (Sec. Sec. 1910.151 and 1915.98). OSHA adopted both
standards, pursuant to section 6(a) of the OSH Act, from the
established Federal occupational safety and health standards in effect
at the time. (The provisions in Sec. 1910.151 apply to shipyards to the
extent that the section addresses hazards and working conditions that
Sec. 1915.98 does not. See Ex.16-9, OSHA's Tool Bag Directive.)
Paragraph (a) General Requirement--In paragraph (a), OSHA proposes
a general requirement that employers ensure that medical services and
first aid for employees are "readily accessible." For purposes of
this section, readily accessible means that medical services and first
aid are capable of being reached quickly when employees need them, or
medical service and first aid can be brought quickly to the employee,
and there are no obstacles to gaining quick access.
The purpose of this provision is twofold. First, it would establish
uniform criteria applicable to all of the first aid and medical
services specified in the section, ensuring that these services are
available and close enough to the injured employee so effective
intervention can be provided. Second, in the case of serious or life-
threatening injury, it would require employers to have steps in place
to ensure that additional emergency medical intervention is readily
accessible. The provision also addresses SESAC's concerns that first
aid providers be able to reach injured employees quickly enough to
render effective assistance.
Uniform criteria for all first aid and medical services are
necessary because their components, primarily first aid providers and
first aid supplies, are interrelated. They both must be readily
accessible for intervention to be effective. It is not effective to
require that first aid kits be situated at every work location without
a parallel requirement to have trained employees at the work location
who are capable of using those supplies. Conversely, on-site trained
first aid providers cannot provide effective assistance if first aid
supplies are too far away to be accessed quickly. Thus, establishing
uniform criteria will help to ensure that the needed components of
first aid and medical services are in place to provide effective
intervention when needed. Uniform provisions will also help to simplify
the section and make it easier to understand and comply with. Finally,
the uniform criterion addresses inconsistency concerns that SESAC
suggested exist in the current requirements. SESAC pointed out that the
existing standard establishes different criteria for different types of
first aid and medical services (Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 167-
173). For example, SESAC pointed out that in existing Sec. 1915.98(a)
first aid rooms, qualified attendants and trained first aid providers
must be "close at hand" to any area of the shipyard while the first
aid kits provision only requires that kits be furnished for and kept
close to each vessel.
OSHA notes that employers will need to consider various workplace
factors in determining whether first aid and medical services are
readily accessible, such as the size and position of each work
location; the number of employees working at the work location; the
nature of the hazards to which employees may be exposed; and the
distance between work locations and clinics (on-site or off-site),
hospitals and rescue squads.
Applying these factors, accidents resulting in severe bleeding or
electrical shock resulting in heart or breath stoppage must be treated
within a very short time (optimally within three to four minutes) to
increase the chances of a positive outcome. To the extent that these
types of accident risks are present in shipyards, such as servicing
electrical systems where there is a risk of energization or start up,
the employer must ensure that necessary first aid is close enough to
maximize the injured employee's survivability. For example, where
employees are at risk of electrical shock, it is necessary to have
first aid providers located in that work area so cardiopulmonary
resuscitation (CPR) can be started quickly.
With regard to the second purpose, the proposed provision would
require employers to ensure ready accessibility to additional medical
services such as rescue squads and ambulances. OSHA notes that some
shipyards, primarily larger ones, already have taken these steps by
establishing their own on-site medical clinics and ambulance or rescue
squads. The proposed provision does not require shipyard employers to
have on-site clinics, ambulance or rescue squads, but at a minimum, it
requires employers to implement a system to ensure that emergency
services such as local rescue squads or ambulance services are readily
accessible when needed. The employer's plan needs to factor in
reasonably foreseeable delays, such as railroad tracks near the
shipyard entrance that could be blocked when rescue squads need to
access injured employees in the shipyard.
OSHA requests comment on this provision. In your establishment and
industry, what measures are in place to ensure that first aid and
medical services are readily accessible? Should the final standard
specify a maximum time within which first aid and medical services must
be available? For example, should the final standard specify that
employers must ensure that first aid and medical services are initiated
within three to five minutes of the discovery or report of an injury?
Paragraph (b) Advice and Consultation--In paragraph (b), OSHA
proposes to retain, with technical changes, the existing requirement in
Sec. 1910.151(a) that employers ensure that health care professionals
are readily available for advice and consultation on matters of
workplace health.
OSHA is proposing to replace two terms in the existing requirement.
The term "plant health" would be changed to "workplace health," to
make the provision more appropriate to shipyards, and "health care
professionals" would replace the term "medical personnel." OSHA
proposes to define health care professional to mean a physician or any
other health care provider whose legally permitted scope of practice
allows the provider to independently provide or be delegated the
responsibility to provide some or all of the advice or consultation
this section requires. The proposal would allow employers to consult
with any health care professional (e.g., physician, osteopath,
physician's assistant, nurse, EMT, etc.) whose license, registration or
certificate authorizes them to provide such assistance and advice. In
some instances, a nurse or physician's assistant at an on-site clinic
may be able to provide the requested advice and consultation. Employers
are also free to use local medical clinics or specialists. The key is
that the health care professional must be readily available to provide
advice and consultation when needed.
Paragraph (c) First Aid Providers--Proposed paragraph (c)(1)
revises the existing provisions (Sec. 1915.98(a)) on the required
number and location of first aid providers and updates the requirements
on their qualifications to more fully address the needs and conditions
present in shipyards. OSHA proposes that employers ensure there are
adequate numbers of employees to render first aid at each work location
during each workshift. Section 1915.98(a) currently requires that where
a first aid room with a qualified attendant is not "close at hand,"
there must be at least one employee "close at hand" to administer
first aid. SESAC raised two concerns about this provision. They said
the language "close at hand" was too vague. In addition, they
expressed concern that first aid providers would not be able to reach
injured employees quickly enough if they were not located at shipyard
work locations. For example, some SESAC members said local emergency
services can be delayed in reaching shipyards due to traffic situations,
such as being stopped at train crossings. To resolve these concerns, SESAC
recommended that there be first aid providers at shipyard work
locations regardless of whether first aid rooms or hospitals are
located nearby (Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 166-173).
Based on SESAC's recommendation, OSHA proposes in paragraph (c)(1)
that employers ensure that there are employees qualified to provide
first aid at each work location during each workshift. OSHA agrees with
SESAC that the proposed provision is necessary and will be effective in
ensuring that first aid is provided quickly enough to maximize
survivability and prevent permanent injury. The sooner life-threatening
conditions are treated, the more likely that the outcome will be
positive. The American Heart Association (AHA) found that when
resuscitation and automatic external defibrillation are delivered
within three to five minutes, reported survival rates from sudden
cardiac arrest are as high as 48 to 74 percent (Ex. 8). Studies have
shown that for each minute sudden cardiac arrest is not treated, the
probability of reviving the heart decreases by 7 to 10 percent (Exs. 7,
8). These data indicate that having responders at the work location
could significantly increase the survival rates for injured employees.
Having first aid providers at the work location can also "buy
time" until off-site rescuers arrive. For example, performing CPR
immediately can help to preserve heart and brain function until local
emergency services are able to provide complete medical treatment, such
as providing oxygen or using an automated external defibrillator (AED)
to restore normal heart rhythm. According to IMIS, there were 13
fatalities in shipyards that were deemed "heart attack" or
"coronary" within a 15 year period. Out of those 13, only 4 reports
documented any basic life support, such as CPR or first aid, prior to
rescue squads arriving on the scene. Even for injuries that are not
immediately life threatening, timely first aid can reduce further
injury and significantly aid recovery by, for example, immobilizing
fractures, reducing blood loss or providing warmth for shock.
For example, the proposed provisions requiring trained employees at
each work location to render first aid, including cardiopulmonary
resuscitation (CPR), may have prevented the following shipyard
fatalities. In one case, a shipyard employee was electrocuted while
troubleshooting a portable outlet box. The IMIS abstract indicates that
coworkers summoned emergency medical personnel to the worksite, which
appears to suggest that there was no one at the worksite trained to
provide CPR to "buy time" until offsite emergency personnel arrived.
There also is no indication how long it took for emergency personnel to
arrive. When the personnel did arrive, they transported the injured
employee to a hospital, but he died. Had the proposed provisions been
in place, there would have been first aid providers at that work
location to begin CPR immediately to preserve the employee's brain and
heart function during those critical first minutes while offsite
emergency personnel are summoned (proposed Sec. 1915.88(c)(1)).
Studies show that for each minute sudden cardiac care is not treated,
the probability of reviving the heart decreases by as much as 10
percent (Ex. 7).
In another case, an employee began experiencing chest pain after
climbing down a scaffolding stair tower for his lunch break. When he
asked coworkers for help, they began walking him along the pier,
presumably to an on-site infirmary. The employee collapsed while he was
walking and died of a heart attack. Under the proposed provisions,
there would have been trained employees who would have known to have
the employee lie down rather walk to an infirmary. Moreover, these
employees would have been able to start CPR, which would have maximized
the employee's survivability potential. Similarly, a shipyard employee
who collapsed while he was working in the engine room of a large ship
may have survived had other employees working in the engine room or on
the vessel been trained to render first aid. There is no indication in
the IMIS abstract whether there were any trained first aid providers in
the engine room or on the vessel to perform CPR.
The proposed requirement to ensure that during each workshift there
are an adequate number of first aid providers (proposed Sec.
1915.88(c)(1)) also may have prevented shipyard fatalities reported in
the IMIS database. For example, during a "graveyard" shift, a
shipyard employee working in the bottom of a vessel cofferdam died
after he suffered cardiac arrest. There is no indication in the
abstract whether any first aid providers attempted resuscitation or
indeed whether there were any first aid providers at the shipyard
during that workshift.
For purposes of this provision, the meaning of a shipyard "work
location" will depend on the size, nature and location of the
shipyard. OSHA does not intend the term to mean a single work area. A
shipyard may have hundreds of work areas and only one or a few
employees may work in any one area. Rather, OSHA intends a shipyard
work location to refer to a group of work areas that are clustered
together and in near proximity to each other. For instance, work areas
in a small, concentrated shipyard may constitute a single work
location, even though some may be located on a vessel and others on
landside. By contrast, a large shipyard that has multiple piers, docks,
large vessels, and landside facilities is likely to be considered to
have multiple work locations. This is because shipyard work areas are
more likely to be spread across a large area, possibly miles apart, and
some may be remotely located. In these shipyards, it is unlikely that a
first aid provider located in one work area would be able to reach all
work areas within the shipyard quickly enough to provide effective
intervention. Accordingly, OSHA believes that each group of clustered
work areas must have an adequate number of first aid providers to
ensure that timely intervention is provided for employees working at a
work area within that group. By contrast, a single work area distantly
located from other work areas may, of necessity, be considered a work
location because first aid providers in other work areas would not be
able to reach the area quickly enough to effectively aid an injured
employee.
Additionally, OSHA is proposing to add a requirement that employers
ensure the work location has first aid providers during each workshift.
Many shipyards have multiple workshifts and employers must ensure that
employees working in any of these workshifts will have effective first
aid intervention if an injury occurs. Having first aid providers at
each work location is especially important during those hours when on-
site and off-site infirmaries and clinics are not open.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1) also includes the following objective
factors employers must consider in determining how many providers are
needed at each work location:
The sizes and location of work locations in the shipyard;
The number of employees at each work location;
The nature of the hazards present at each work location;
and
The distance of each shipyard work location from clinics
(on-site or off-site), rescue squads and hospitals.
OSHA believes that the addition of the objective factors not only
will make the requirement easier for employers to understand and comply
with, but also will address SESAC's concern about the vagueness of the current
language (Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 167-173). (A more detailed
explanation of the objective factors is included below in the
discussion of first aid supplies).
OSHA believes the proposed revision should not pose significant new
burdens for shipyard employers since many already have multiple
employees at each work location who are qualified to provide first aid.
For instance, one SESAC member said that a significant number of
employees in Boston area shipyards already receive first aid training:
[T]he employer would pick employees to go to the first aid
training center, and after the training was over, he'd go back to
the shop and other people would go, and it was a continual thing,
and they'd be certified (SESAC 1992-2, Ex. 102X, p. 161).
OSHA requests comment on the proposed provision. In your
establishment and industry, how many employees are trained to provide
first aid? Are there trained providers at each work location and during
all workshifts? Are the objective factors in the proposed standard
appropriate for determining how many first aid providers employers
should have at each work location? What additional factors, if any,
should employers consider?
OSHA has recently developed and published a Best Practices Guide:
Fundamentals of a Workplace First-Aid Program (Ex. 18). This document
provides a discussion on the basics of assessing the risks and
designing a first aid program that is specific to the worksite.
Although this document addresses some basics, while developing a first
aid program, employers need to keep in mind the additional factors
specified in the proposal.
First aid provider training/qualifications. The importance of first
aid training is immeasurable. Although some shipyard employees may have
received training in the past, appropriate and up-to-date training is
necessary to ensure that injured employees receive correct
intervention. Lack of training can also result in a lack of treatment
when it is needed. For example, in 2002, as an employee was standing on
a scaffold to bolt a motor onto a crane located off of the main house.
After descending from the scaffolding for his lunch break, the employee
complained of chest pains and asked coworkers for help. They proceeded
to walk the employee along the pier. The employee collapsed while he
was walking and died of a heart attack. Had the coworkers been trained
in first aid and CPR, they would have known the correct steps to follow
when an employee experiences the early signs and symptoms of a cardiac
event.
Section 1915.98(a) currently requires that any person administering
first aid be "qualified," but does not define the term. In paragraph
(c)(2), OSHA proposes to make this intent clearer by stating that
employees designated to provide first aid must have a "valid first aid
certificate." The proposed language is drawn from a similar
requirement in the Longshoring standard, which OSHA updated in 1997
(Sec. 1918.97(b)).
The proposal is designed to give employers maximum flexibility in
developing a first aid training program that is appropriate for the
types of working conditions and hazards in their workplaces. With one
exception, CPR training, the proposal does not establish the specific
content of the required first aid training program that employers must
follow. As long as the certificate is issued by a responsible
organization, such as the American Red Cross, the American Heart
Association, or other equivalent organization, which requires
successful course completion as evidence of qualification, the
requirements of the proposal would be met. Likewise, the proposal does
not specify a frequency for first aid refresher training. Whatever
frequency the certifying organization requires for retaining
certification, usually three years, would be allowed.
OSHA is considering including an appendix on the requirements of a
first aid training program to ensure that employees are fully trained
by qualified instructors. This appendix could be similar to that found
in the Logging Operations standard (Sec. 1910.266), which includes a
mandatory appendix that specifies the minimally acceptable first aid
training program that employers must follow. Some of the required
topics include respiratory arrest, cardiac arrest, lacerations/
abrasions, shock, burns and loss of consciousness. Similarly, the
Longshoring first aid standard (Sec. 1918.97) includes a non-mandatory
appendix that lists the basic elements of a first aid training program.
Along with topic areas such as shock, bleeding, poisoning and burns,
this appendix also specifies the manner in which employees must receive
training. For example, it recommends that trainees develop hands-on
skills through the use of manikins, a course workbook, and adequate
time for emphasis on situations likely to be encountered in the
particular workplace.
OSHA requests comment on the proposed first aid training
requirement. Should the final standard require that first aid providers
have a valid first aid and CPR certificate? Should the final rule
specify the areas in which first aid providers must be trained? Should
OSHA include an appendix similar to that in Sec. 1910.266 or 1918.97
in the final rule? If not, why not? If so, what should the program
include? Should the program include hands-on exercises? Should the
final rule include a requirement that whatever first aid training
program and trainer/provider the employer uses, that the program and/or
trainer be certified by a nationally recognized first aid organization?
Please explain.
In your establishment and/or industry, what training and
certification do first aid providers have and does it include CPR
training? What organizations, if any, conduct the first aid training
and certification? How frequently do first aid providers have refresher
training?
Paragraph (d)--First Aid Supplies--In paragraph (d), OSHA proposes
to revise the existing requirement on first aid supplies (Sec.
1915.98(b)). The proposed changes give employers more flexibility and
assistance in tailoring the type, amount and location of supplies to
the specific needs of their workplace. The proposal includes objective
criteria, which are the same as those proposed for first aid providers,
to assist employers in meeting the requirement. A non-mandatory
appendix to this section references the most recent consensus standards
regarding first aid supplies, consistent with the recently revised
general industry standard (Sec. 1910.151).
Location of first aid supplies. In paragraph (d)(1), OSHA proposes
to revise the existing standard to require that first aid supplies be
provided "at each work location." (In proposed paragraph (d)(2), OSHA
identifies objective criteria to assist employers in determining where
to locate supplies in each work location so they will be readily
accessible when needed). The existing standard requires that, under
certain circumstances, first aid kits be furnished "for each vessel on
which work is being performed" and be kept "close to the vessel"
(Sec. 1915.98(a)). The general industry standard, which was revised in
1998, specifies that first aid supplies must be "readily available"
(Sec. 1910.151(b); 63 FR 33450 (6/19/1998)).
The proposed revision gives employers more flexibility and guidance
about where supplies need to be located. In addition, the proposal
clarifies OSHA's intent that first aid supplies need to be located at
all work locations throughout the shipyard, those onboard and near
vessels as well as those at landside work locations.
OSHA requests comment on this provision. In your industry and
establishment, where are first aid kits located and what factors do you
consider in determining where to locate them?
Number of first aid supplies. The existing standard (Sec.
1915.98(b)) requires that employers provide "sufficient" quantities
of first aid supplies, but does not define the term. In paragraph
(d)(1), OSHA proposes to revise the existing rule to require that
employers provide "adequate" first aid supplies at each work
location, and adds, in proposed paragraph (d)(2), objective criteria
employers must follow in determining whether they have provided enough
supplies to meet the needs of that work location. Of particular
importance in determining the number of supplies is the number of
employees who will be working at the specific location. OSHA requests
comment on this provision. In your industry and establishment, how many
first aid kits are provided and what factors do you consider in
determining how many are needed?
Proposed paragraph (d)(1) also requires that employers maintain
their first aid supplies so they remain adequate. This means that
employers must ensure that not only are the number of first aid
supplies adequate, but also that exhausted supplies are replaced. For
purposes of this provision, maintain also means that first aid supplies
must be kept in serviceable condition. A more detailed explanation of
the proposed maintenance requirement is included below along with the
discussion of the inspection of first aid supplies.
Contents of first aid kits. In paragraph (d)(2), OSHA proposes to
revise the existing requirements on the contents of first aid kits
(Sec. 1915.98(b)). The existing provision specifies a list of items
that first aid kits must contain, a list that SESAC said was outdated
(Docket 1992-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 161, 162). Based on SESAC's
recommendation, in paragraph (d)(2), OSHA proposes to replace the list
with a performance based approach.
The list of supplies in Sec. 1915.98(b) was adopted more than 30
years ago, prior to adoption of the 1978 ANSI Z308.1 standard on
workplace first aid kits and is inconsistent with the current ANSI
standard (Ex. 3-2, ANSI Z308.1 (1998) Minimum Requirements for
Workplace First Aid Kits). The list in Sec. 1915.98(b) does not
include all of the minimum content requirements for basic first aid
kits specified in the current ANSI standard and includes items that
ANSI no longer recommends for general workplace kits (i.e., tourniquets
and forceps) (Ex. 3-2, Table 5-1).
OSHA believes that adopting a performance-based approach on the
contents of first aid kits will give employers maximum flexibility in
tailoring their first aid supplies to the conditions and hazards
present in their workplace. Adding objective criteria that employers
must consider in determining the content of first aid kits provides a
framework for assuring that first aid supplies will be appropriate and
adequate for the shipyard work location.
Objective criteria. In paragraph (d)(2), OSHA proposes to add
objective criteria to assist employers in determining whether the
location, content and amount of first aid supplies are adequate and
appropriate for shipyard work locations. The proposal includes the
following four criteria that employers must consider:
The size and location of each shipyard work location. The
size of the shipyard work location is an important consideration. It is
likely that large work locations are spread out and, as such, more
first aid kits may be necessary to ensure they are readily accessible
if an employee gets injured. Employers also need to consider the
location of where employees are working throughout shipyards when
determining the number, content and positioning of first aid kits. For
example, remote work locations or other shipyard work locations that
are farther away from rescue squads or hospitals may need to have more
first aid supplies or a broader range of supplies to care for an
injured employee until additional help arrives or the employee can be
transported for more advanced care. Work locations that may be cut off
by passing railcars also may need more first aid supplies in case
access roads are blocked when an injury occurs. In addition, it would
be necessary for vessels that are underway to have adequate first aid
supplies onboard.
The number of employees at each work location. In general,
when there are more employees at a work location the employer would
need to provide more first aid supplies to prepare for the possibility
that an accident could result in multiple employee injuries, or that
several accidents could occur within a short period of time.
The nature of hazards present at each work location.
Employers need to assess the specific needs and the nature of the
hazards present in each work location to ensure that first aid kits
contain the types and quantity of supplies needed to effectively treat
the injuries and illnesses that could be expected. For example, in
shops where hot work is performed first aid supplies for burns would be
necessary, and in outdoor areas first aid items for insect or animal
bites may be needed.
The distance of each work location from hospitals,
clinics, and rescue squads. The distance--and therefore the time
needed--to get to hospitals or clinics (on-site or off-site), and for
rescue squads to respond is also an important factor in determining the
location, amount and type of first aid supplies employers need to
provide. A single first aid kit may be adequate for small work
locations that are close to on-site infirmaries or local emergency
services. However, additional kits and types of supplies may be
necessary when medical services are farther away.
OSHA requests comment on the proposed provisions, including the
objective factors employers would need to consider in determining the
location, amount and types of first aid supplies to provide. What
additional factors, if any, should employers consider? In your
establishment and industry, what factors do you use in making
determinations about first aid supplies?
Non-mandatory appendix. Section 1910.151 includes a recently
revised non-mandatory appendix to provide information on the contents
of first aid kits (70 FR 1112, 1141 (1/5/2005)). OSHA proposes to
incorporate the Sec. 1910.151 appendix, with revisions that update the
appendix. The proposed appendix provides guidance to employers on the
contents of first aid kits, assessing workplace risks, and OSHA's
requirements for protecting first aid providers from possible exposure
to bloodborne pathogens. In the proposal, OSHA is updating the
reference to the ANSI Z308.1 standard on minimum requirements for
workplace first aid kits. The proposed appendix references the 2003
ANSI standard (Ex. 3-16). The appendix to Sec. 1915.87, which OSHA
added in 1998 (70 FR 1141 (6/18/1998)), references the 1998 ANSI
standard (Ex. 3-2). OSHA requests comment on whether the non-mandatory
appendix should include other information on first aid supplies. If so,
what should it include?
Maintenance and inspection of first aid supplies. In paragraphs
(d)(1) and (3), OSHA proposes to revise the existing requirements on
the maintenance and inspection of first aid supplies (Sec. 1915.98(b)
and (c)). OSHA proposes to replace the existing maintenance and
inspection provisions with more flexible performance language.
With regard to maintenance of first aid supplies, the existing
standard requires that first aid kits have a weatherproof container and
that supplies are in individually sealed packages. Read together,
proposed paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(3) require that first aid supplies
be maintained in "dry, sterile and serviceable condition." For
purposes of this provision, OSHA would define serviceable condition to
mean the state or ability of a device to operate as it was intended by
the manufacturer to operate (proposed Sec. 1915.95).
OSHA believes the proposed language provides employers with greater
flexibility in tailoring the maintenance and packaging of first aid
supplies to the specific conditions present in their work locations
while at the same time ensuring that supplies remain useable. For
example, first aid kits for use in outdoor and mobile work locations
may need weatherproof containers to keep supplies dry, sterile and
serviceable, but the same may not be necessary for first aid kits used
in enclosed facilities. OSHA notes that individually packaged first aid
supplies stored in weatherproof containers would typically be
considered in compliance with the proposed requirements as would
supplies maintained in accordance with the current ANSI Z308.1 standard
(Ex. 3-2).
As mentioned, OSHA proposes to require that first aid supplies be
kept in "serviceable condition." The purpose of the provision is to
ensure that the first aid supplies remain effective. To ensure first
aid supplies remain serviceable, employers would need to store them in
accordance with manufacturer instructions (e.g., out of direct
sunlight, not above a certain temperature) and replace supplies when
their use date expires. Supplies that are maintained and operated in
accordance with manufacturer instructions and recommendations would
generally be considered in compliance with the serviceable condition
requirement. Inherent in the proposed requirement to ensure that first
aid supplies are in proper condition is the employer's obligation to
replace supplies that are found to be deficient.
In regard to inspection of first aid supplies, the existing
standard requires that first aid supplies be checked before being sent
out on a job and at least weekly thereafter to ensure that expended
items are replaced (Sec. 1915.98(c)). In paragraph (d)(3), OSHA
proposes to replace that language with performance language that would
require employers to inspect first aid supplies at intervals that
ensure they remain in "dry, sterile and serviceable condition." The
proposal gives employers greater flexibility to determine what
inspection procedures would be most effective for ensuring that
supplies remain in appropriate condition and adequately replenished.
For example, it would allow employers to opt for stocking work
locations with a larger supply of first aid supplies and establish
something other than a weekly maintenance and inspection schedule. It
also would allow employers to use smaller, portable first aid kits,
such as for mobile work crews, which may need to be inspected and
restocked more frequently.
OSHA requests comment on the proposed maintenance and inspection
requirements. In your establishment and industry, what maintenance and
inspection procedures are followed to ensure that first aid supplies
are in adequate supply and serviceable condition?
Paragraph (e)--Quick Drenching/Flushing Facilities--Section
1910.151(c) currently requires that quick drenching or flushing
facilities ("quick drench facilities") be provided within the work
area for immediate emergency use where the eyes or body may be exposed
to "injurious corrosive materials." OSHA proposes in paragraph (e) to
retain and expand the existing provision to require that quick drench
facilities be provided where employees could be splashed with hazardous
or toxic substances. Shipyard employees involved in operations such as
cleaning, painting, and stripping operations are at risk of being
splashed with solvents or other chemicals. Although these substances
may not necessarily be corrosives, they can injure or burn the skin or
eyes or be absorbed rapidly through the skin causing harmful effects.
The expanded coverage of the proposed provision is consistent with
the scope of the current ANSI Z358.1 standard (Ex. 3-4, ANSI Z358.1
(1998)), American National Standard for Emergency Eyewash and Shower
Equipment). The ANSI standard establishes minimum requirements for
emergency eyewashes and showers for persons who have been exposed to
"injurious" or "hazardous materials," which the standard defines as
"any substance or compound that has the capability of producing
adverse effects on the health and safety of humans."
Location of quick drench facilities. In paragraph (e), OSHA
proposes to retain the existing requirement (Sec. 1910.151(c)) that a
quick drenching facility be located within each work area for immediate
emergency use. For purposes of this paragraph, OSHA does not intend
"work area" to mean the entire work location or workplace. Rather,
work area means the immediate area where employees are working and
potentially exposed to hazardous or toxic materials. Having quick
drench facilities as close as possible to the hazard is necessary to
ensure that hazardous substances can be removed quick enough to prevent
injury or absorption and that facilities are directly accessible in
those situations where the employee may be blinded by a hazardous
substance. For example, where employees working in a paint shop are
routinely exposed to solvents and other chemicals during mixing or
cleaning operations, a quick drench facility needs to be located within
the shop so employees do not have to go to another area in the shipyard
to reach a quick drench facility.
In those work areas where it is impracticable to place permanent
(i.e., plumbed) quick drench facilities, such as confined spaces, the
employer would need to provide portable facilities. OSHA does not
believe this should pose a problem for employers since many already
have these portable facilities. The ANSI Z358.1 standard includes
specifications for self-contained eyewash equipment as well as personal
quick drench equipment that could be used in such locations (Ex. 3-3,
ANSI Z358.1).
OSHA requests comment on whether the final rule should adopt the
approach in the ANSI standard that quick drench facilities be located
within a maximum distance (e.g., distance traveled in 10 seconds) of
the hazard. In your establishment and industry, where are quick drench
facilities located? How close to the immediate work areas are they
located and generally how long does it take an injured employee to
reach them? What type of quick drench facilities are provided for use
in areas where a permanent (plumbed) facility cannot be placed?
Paragraph (f)--Basket Stretchers--In paragraph (f), OSHA is
altering the requirements for basket stretchers. Paragraph (f) proposes
that an adequate number of basket stretchers, or the equivalent, be
readily accessible. OSHA also proposes that they be equipped with
permanent lifting bridles that enable the stretcher to be attached to
hoisting gear and be capable of lifting at least 5,000 pounds. In
addition, these basket stretchers must be capable of securely
restraining the injured employee and provide a blanket or other
suitable covering. Finally, the basket stretchers must be stored in a
clearly-marked location, be protected from damage and be inspected to
ensure they remain in a safe and serviceable condition.
Number of basket stretchers. In paragraph (f)(1), OSHA proposes to
revise the existing requirements (Sec. 1915.98(d)) on the required
number of basket stretchers used to remove injured employees from
vessels. Section 1915.98(d) currently requires that employers provide
at least one basket stretcher (or equivalent) "for each vessel on
which ten (10) or more employees are working," but does not require
the employer to provide more than two stretchers "on each job
location." Employers are exempted from this requirement where
ambulance services carry such stretchers. Where basket stretchers are
required, they must be equipped with lifting bridles and a blanket, and
kept close to the vessel.
SESAC members raised a number of concerns about the existing
section. Members said the provision was unclear about whether a basket
stretcher must be dedicated solely to a vessel or whether it could be
used for all vessels located within a specific area (e.g., on the same
pier) (Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 147-167). SESAC also said it
was unclear what the term "job location" refers to (e.g., a pier, a
vessel, or a work area onboard a vessel).
Several SESAC members said it was burdensome and unnecessary to
require that basket stretchers be dedicated solely to one vessel and
that there was no reason to provide more stretchers than were capable
of being hoisted. SESAC members pointed out that since many shipyard
locations have only one crane, and only one basket stretcher can be
moved at one time, only one basket stretcher should be required.
(Docket SESAC 1992-2, Ex. 104X, pp. 146--147; Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex.
100X, pp. 155-158).
Other SESAC members said the provision was not protective enough.
Specifically, they were concerned that the provision did not appear to
require basket stretchers if fewer than 10 employees worked onboard a
vessel, a cutoff that appeared arbitrary to them. They also said that
OSHA should make explicit that the provision applies to vessel sections
in addition to vessels (Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 142-143,
147).
Location of basket stretchers. In paragraph (f)(1), OSHA proposes a
performance-based provision requiring that employers provide basket
stretchers so they are readily accessible when work is being performed
onboard a vessel or vessel section. The proposed requirement recognizes
that, in some situations, having just one basket stretcher at a
location where work is being performed on vessels or vessel sections
may be adequate to ensure ready accessibility. For example, as SESAC
members stated, if a crane is capable of hoisting a basket stretcher
from any one of several barges docked together, one stretcher may
provide ready accessibility for that group of vessels. Likewise, where
a shipyard crane mounted on railtracks can move back and forth to hoist
a basket stretcher from one of several vessels or vessel sections, one
stretcher may be adequate to remove injured employees from any of those
vessels or vessel sections (Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100X, p. 155).
In other situations, however, one basket stretcher may not be
adequate to ensure that one is readily accessible. In very large
shipyards that have several work locations with hundreds, if not
thousands, of employees working far apart on vessels and vessel
sections, more than one basket stretcher may be needed to ensure that
one is readily accessible to each work location. Some SESAC members
also said additional stretchers should be provided where it is
necessary to speed up removal of injured employees (Docket SESAC 1993-
1, Ex. 100X, p. 159). Having additional stretchers allows first aid
providers to ready other injured employees for removal while the first
employee is being lifted to shore.
OSHA believes the proposed revision is a reasonable approach that
will provide effective protection for employees. In certain
circumstances, basket stretchers will need to be provided even when
fewer than 10 employees are working onboard a vessel, an issue that
concerned SESAC (Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100X, p. 147). At the same
time, it gives employers flexibility to tailor their efforts to the
specific conditions and equipment present at the work area.
OSHA requests comment on the proposed provision. In your
establishment how many basket stretchers are provided and where are
they located? Are basket stretchers provided for vessel sections and
when fewer than 10 employees are working onboard a vessel or vessel
section? If not, what measures are used to ensure that injured
employees are removed safely and quickly in these situations?
Exception. In paragraph (f)(1), OSHA proposes to delete language in
the existing rule (Sec. 1915.98(d)) stating that the requirement to
provide basket stretchers does not apply where ambulance services are
available and carry such stretchers. OSHA believes this language is no
longer necessary since the proposed language in paragraph (f)(1)
ensures that basket stretchers are "readily accessible." The proposal
gives employers flexibility to provide their own stretchers or utilize
the stretchers provided by local emergency squads if they are readily
accessible. OSHA requests comment on whether local emergency squads are
readily accessible to vessel work locations and whether they have
basket stretchers that meet the proposed requirements. To what extent
do shipyard employers rely on local emergency squads to provide basket
stretchers?
Specifications for basket stretchers. In paragraph (f)(2), OSHA
proposes to retain, with revisions, the existing specification
requirements for basket stretchers (Sec. 1915.98(d)). Proposed
paragraph (f)(2)(i) retains the existing requirement that basket
stretchers have permanent lifting bridles to enable the stretcher to be
attached to hoisting gear. OSHA proposes to add a strength requirement
that basket stretcher bridles be capable of lifting at least 5,000
pounds (2,270 kg), which provides a safety factor of five. The proposed
addition is based on requirements in the Marine Terminals and
Longshoring standards, which were updated in 1997 (Sec. Sec.
1917.26(d) and 1918.97(d)).
In paragraph (f)(2)(ii) OSHA proposes to add a requirement that
basket stretchers have restraints that are capable of securely holding
the injured employee while the stretcher is lifted or moved. This
addition is also based on the Marine Terminals and Longshoring
standards (Sec. Sec. 1917.26(d)(4) and 1918.97(d)(4)). OSHA believes
it is appropriate to apply the Marine Terminals and Longshoring
provisions to shipyard employment because the use of basket stretchers
and the working conditions are similar. The proposed changes should not
pose a problem for shipyard employers because most basket stretchers
already meet those criteria.
Finally, in paragraph (f)(2)(iii) OSHA proposes to retain the
existing requirement that each basket stretcher have a blanket or other
suitable covering to cover injured employees and protect them from
environmental conditions.
OSHA requests comment on the proposed specifications for basket
stretchers. The Marine Terminals and Longshoring standards also have
specifications for stretchers and bridles to make vertical patient
lifts (Sec. Sec. 1917.26(d)(5) and 1918.97(d)(5)). OSHA requests
comment on whether the final standard should include those additional
specifications.
Storage of basket stretchers. In paragraph (f)(3), OSHA proposes to
add a requirement that basket stretchers be stored in a clearly-marked
location and in a manner that prevents damage and provides protection
from environmental conditions. The proposed language is based on
similar requirements in the Marine Terminals and Longshoring standards
(1917.26(d)(7) and 1918.97(d)(7)).
The addition of this provision would accomplish two goals. First,
requiring storage areas to be clearly marked helps to ensure that
stretchers are easy to locate when they are needed. Second, storing
stretchers so they are protected from damage and environmental
conditions prevents deterioration of the equipment. OSHA requests
comment on the proposed provision. In your establishment and industry,
how are basket stretchers stored to protect them from damage and
environmental conditions? How are storage areas marked to ensure easy
access?
Inspection. Proposed paragraph (f)(4) would require the employer to
inspect stretchers at intervals that ensure they remain in safe and
serviceable condition. This is a flexible, performance-based measure
similar to the requirement to inspect first aid supplies to ensure they
are adequate. This proposed measure will assure that lifesaving
equipment functions properly when needed in an emergency and is
particularly important if basket stretchers are not used frequently.
Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs)
OSHA is raising for discussion the issue of whether shipyards
should be required to have Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs).
According to the American Heart Association, over 300,000 individuals
die from cardiac arrest each year, with most occurring outside
hospitals (Ex. 8). In 2001 and 2002, there were 6,628 work-related
fatalities reported to OSHA--1,216 of these deaths were from heart
attack, 354 from electric shock, and 267 from asphyxia (Ex. 6).
Survival rates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are only one to five
percent, but treatment of ventricular fibrillation (i.e., chaotic
beating of the heart) with immediate defibrillation (i.e., within one
minute) has achieved survival rates as high as 90 percent (Ex. 7). Fast
and immediate defibrillation is the most critical step in treatment of
cardiac arrest because it is the definitive therapy for ventricular
fibrillation.
AEDs restore normal heart rhythm with electrical shock
(defibrillation). AEDs have been shown to significantly increase
survival rates where they are used immediately (i.e., within three to
five minutes). For example, in the first 10 months after Chicago's
O'Hare and Midway Airports installed AEDs, 9 of 14 (64 percent) cardiac
victims were revived and survived (Ex. 7).
In the past decade, there have been significant advances in AED
technology, including advances in miniaturization and improvements in
their reliability and safety. Today, AEDs are small, lightweight units
in portable carriers; run on rechargeable batteries; analyze the heart
rhythm; and automatically indicate when to shock with easy-to-follow
audio prompts. These improvements have also greatly minimized the
training needed to operate them. Many studies have shown that AEDs are
nearly error-free and effective when used by non-medical first aid
responders in the workplace (Ex. 7). The costs of AEDs have dropped
dramatically in recent years. In 2001, for instance, AEDs cost $3,000-
$4,500 on average. Now they are widely available for less than $1,500
(Ex. 5). OSHA anticipates that AED costs will continue to decline as
the use of AEDs increases.
OSHA's existing medical services and first aid standards do not
require that AEDs be provided in workplaces or that employees be
trained in their operation. However, many employers, concerned that
local emergency services cannot respond quickly enough, have been
equipping their workplaces with AEDs and training employees in their
use.
OSHA requests comment on whether shipyards should be required to
have AEDs as part of their first aid and medical services. If not, why
not? If so, should the requirement apply to all shipyards or be limited
to certain types of work or work locations (e.g., remote work areas,
work where employees are exposed to electrical hazards, shiftwork)?
What criteria should employers use to determine whether and how many
AEDs should be provided and where they should be located? In your
establishment and industry are AEDs provided? If not, why not? If so,
how many are provided and what criteria were considered in making that
determination? Who is trained and authorized to operate the AEDs?
Section 1915.88 Sanitation
Sanitation in shipyards is currently covered by a shipyard
standard, Sec. 1915.97, and is supplemented by a general industry
standard, Sec. 1910.141. (See Ex. 16-9, OSHA's Tool Bag Directive.) As
part of its overall efforts to incorporate comprehensive shipyard
requirements into Part 1915, the Agency is proposing to consolidate and
update these provisions in a new standard on sanitation, Sec. 1915.88.
The new proposed section carries forward many provisions that have
applied to shipyards for several decades. At the same time, it reflects
improvements in workplace sanitation that have been developed since the
earlier standards were adopted.
Adverse health effects associated with the lack of appropriate
sanitation facilities are well recognized and documented. They include
communicable diseases, heat-related illness, health effects related to
delay of urination and defecation, and effects associated with
ingestion or absorption of hazardous or toxic substances. These health
hazards were discussed at length in the preamble to the final Field
Sanitation standard (52 FR 16050, 5/1/87). OSHA has updated this
discussion and placed it in the docket as a reference document (Ex.
12).
OSHA recognizes that working conditions in shipyards are often less
than ideal for sanitation. For example, some shipyards are in remote
locations, without adequate piped water and sewer facilities. Much
shipyard work is also performed outdoors, often in high temperatures
and humidity. OSHA has previously developed sanitation standards to
address these types of working conditions in marine terminals (Sec.
1917.127), field sanitation (Sec. 1928.110), longshoring (Sec.
1918.95), and construction (Sec. 1926.51). The Agency has used these
standards as source documents for the present proposal. In addition to
these sources, OSHA has also reviewed the most recent applicable ANSI
sanitation standards--in particular, ANSI Z4.1-1995 (Ex. 3-6) and Z4.3-
1995 (Ex. 3-7)--and incorporated relevant provisions into the proposed
standard. (ANSI Z4.1 addresses general sanitation in workplaces, while
ANSI Z4.3 covers non-sewered waste disposal systems.)
Most of the changes being proposed in Sec. 1915.88 reflect changes
in technology and sanitation practices that have developed since the
original standards were adopted. For example, the proposal specifically
addresses portable toilets and other portable sanitation facilities.
The proposed standard is also more performance-oriented and flexible
than the existing requirements.
As Table 3 makes clear, many of the changes being incorporated into
proposed Sec. 1915.88 are editorial in nature. This reflects the
Agency's effort to merge most of the current requirements of Sec.
1910.141 and Sec. 1915.97 into a single set of sanitation requirements
for shipyards. Table 3 provides an overview of the new proposed Sec.
1915.88, a comparison to the existing requirements, and a brief explanation
of all proposed changes. The preamble discussion following Table 3 focuses
on the relatively few substantive changes being proposed, the Agency's
rationale for these changes, and related issues. In addition, the discussion
includes responses to various SESAC recommendations, as appropriate.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE07.000
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE07.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE07.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE07.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE07.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE07.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE07.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE07.007
BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
Most of the changes in this proposal are adequately discussed in
Table 3. However, some provisions require additional discussion and
explanation. The following section provides additional discussion
concerning these elements of the proposal and raises specific issues
for public comment.
Paragraph (a)--General Requirements--Paragraph (a) incorporates a
series of general requirements for the accessibility, adequacy, and
maintenance of sanitation facilities in shipyards. It simplifies the
existing standards and makes them apply more uniformly throughout the
shipyard. The proposal also uses a new term, "sanitation facilities"
(defined in Sec. 1915.95), to cover the wide range of elements that
employers provide for the "health and personal needs of employees."
Sanitation facilities include drinking water, toilets, handcleaning
facilities, showers, changing rooms, and eating and drinking areas. The
term also includes the supplies for those facilities, such as drinking
cups, toilet paper, towels, soap, and waterless cleaning agents.
A sanitation facility cannot meet the employee's health needs
unless it meets all the requirements addressing accessibility, adequacy
and maintenance. For instance, if toilets are provided but are all
located too far away, employees may have to refrain from using
facilities, or from drinking during the workshift so they will not need
to use them. Employees may do the same thing if toilets, particularly
portable ones, are dirty, not serviced regularly, or require a long
wait. These actions can result in significant adverse health effects
(Ex. 12).
Proposed paragraph (a)(1) requires that sanitation facilities be
(1) readily accessible, and (2) adequate for the number of employees at
the work premises. Employers must provide sanitation facilities that
meet both requirements in order to be considered in compliance.
Readily accessible. Unlike the sanitation standards for marine
terminals, longshoring, and field sanitation (Sec. Sec. 1917.127,
1918.127, 1928.110, respectively), the current sanitation standards for
shipyards do not directly address the accessibility of sanitation
facilities. Paragraph (a)(1) of proposed Sec. 1915.88 remedies this
omission, using performance-oriented language. Ready access to
sanitation facilities helps to protect employee health and reduce the
risk of adverse health effects. For example, lack of ready access to
drinking water can result in dehydration, which can be fatal,
especially in hot and humid working conditions. Ready access to
sanitation facilities will also increase the likelihood of their use,
reducing the risks associated with delayed use.
In order for sanitation facilities to be considered "readily
accessible," employees must be able to reach the facilities quickly
whenever they need to use them, and there must be no obstacles to
gaining quick access. OSHA recognizes that whether sanitation
facilities are readily accessible depends on the type of sanitation
facility, the sizes and locations of worksites, and physical
characteristics of the shipyard. In small shipyards, sanitation
facilities may be readily accessible if they are located in one area.
However, where worksites are large and spread out, toilets, handwashing
facilities and drinking water located in only one location would likely
not be considered readily accessible.
Sanitation facilities also must be readily accessible to shipyard
employees who work onboard vessels. Where employees work on a small
vessel, sanitation facilities may be readily accessible if they are
located dockside. However, where employees work on a large vessel, they
may not be able to get to facilities quickly enough if such facilities
are located only on the dock. Sanitation facilities may need to be
located on deck or in various places throughout the vessel to ensure
employees have ready access when they need to use them. When the ship's
toilet and handwashing facilities are not available to shipyard
employees working onboard vessels (e.g., the ship is being built or
systems are turned off during repair) the employer needs to make other
arrangements to ensure that such facilities are readily accessible.
Whether sanitation facilities are readily accessible is also
related to how frequently they must be used during a workshift. For
example, drinking water supplies, especially during hot and humid
summer weather, must be at or close to the employee's immediate work
area. Employees who perform heavy manual labor, work with heat-
producing equipment, or must spend time in spaces that are not well
ventilated or air-conditioned need to have enough drinking water close
at hand to prevent dehydration. On the other hand, changing rooms and
eating areas that are used only once or twice during a workshift may
not need to be as close to the work area.
OSHA notes that other sanitation standards specify maximum
distances for locating sanitation facilities relative to employee work
areas. For example, the OSHA Field Sanitation standard requires that
toilet facilities be located within a one-quarter-mile walk of each
employee's place of work (Sec. 1928.110(c)(2)(iii)). ANSI Z4.1
requires that potable water and sewered toilet facilities be located
within 200 feet of any place where employees are regularly engaged in
work (Ex. 3-6, Sec. Sec. 5.1.1 and 6.1.2).
On July 29, 1998, a shipyard employee was finishing up a workshift
where he was operating grinding and sanding equipment on two decks of a
ship. He clocked out at 2:30 p.m., got a ride to his supervisor's
office to get some information, and was driven back to the wet dock. He
was walking to the bike area when he became dizzy and fell to his
knees. His supervisor picked him up and gave him water and a cold
compress. He was transported to the first aid station, where he was
given oxygen and ice packs were placed on his head and under his arms.
When he later collapsed, emergency medical technicians ventilated and
defibrillated him. He died later at a hospital from heat exhaustion and
heat stroke, possibly from not having enough drinking water readily
accessible at his work location. The existing drinking water
requirements specify that employers provide potable water "in all
places of employment" (Sec. 1910.141(b)(1)), but do not identify
where water supplies must be located in those workplaces. The proposed
rule clarifies the existing requirements by specifying that employers
must provide adequate and "readily accessible" drinking water in
amounts that meet the health and personal needs of each employee at the
worksite (proposed Sec. 1915.87(a)(1) and (b)(2)). In the summary and
explanation of Sec. 1915.87, OSHA also identifies factors that
employers need to consider in determining how much drinking water they
must supply and where it must be located. These factors include size
and location of worksites, frequency of use, and environmental
conditions such as hot weather. Had the proposed clarifications been in
place, it would have been clearer that the shipyard employer needed to
ensure that the employee had adequate drinking water accessible at
their work location on the vessel.
OSHA requests comment on the proposed requirement for location of
sanitation facilities. In particular, OSHA requests comment on whether
the final rule should contain more specific requirements for the
location of sanitation facilities, especially toilet facilities. For
example, should the final rule specify maximum distances, maximum
walking times (e.g., 5 or 10 minutes), or other objective criteria for
determining where sanitation facilities must be located in the workplace?
Should different specifications be developed for specific types of sanitation
facilities? OSHA seeks information on where sanitation facilities are
located and what criteria are used to make this determination.
Serviceable Condition. Paragraph (a)(2) proposes to add language
making more explicit OSHA's longstanding policy that employers supply
and maintain sanitation facilities in clean, sanitary and serviceable
condition. The current general industry standard specifies that
employers must keep all places of employment clean (Sec.
1910.141(a)(3)(i)). The proposal clarifies that this requirement
applies to sanitation facilities at workplaces. The proposal also
retains existing language on maintaining sanitary conditions from the
current lavatory requirements (Sec. 1910.141(d)(1)).
Paragraph (a)(2), adds a proposed requirement for employers to
maintain sanitation facilities in "serviceable condition," which OSHA
proposes to define (in Sec. 1915.95) as the state or ability of a
device to operate as it was intended by the manufacturer to operate.
OSHA is including this new proposed provision primarily because the
proposed rule allows the use of portable toilet facilities. Portable
toilet facilities that are not properly serviced can become unsanitary
and overflow, thereby exposing employees to contaminants or causing
them to avoid using the facilities. While OSHA is not specifying
detailed servicing requirements in the proposed rule, the Agency notes
that ANSI Z4.3 contains useful information on servicing practices for
portable toilets (Ex. 3-7).
OSHA requests comment on this provision. OSHA seeks information on
the measures in place to ensure that sanitation facilities and supplies
are maintained in clean, sanitary and serviceable condition. How often
are sanitation facilities inspected, cleaned, and restocked? Are there
different procedures and/or schedules for portable toilet facilities as
opposed to other sanitation facilities?
Paragraph (b) Potable water--Proposed Sec. 1915.88(b)(3) would
expand the existing rule to allow employers to provide drinking water
in single use bottles. OSHA requests comment on the proposal. Where and
to what extent are single use drinking water bottles used in your
shipyard?
OSHA is also considering adding a requirement to the final standard
requiring employers to ensure that drinking water is "suitably cool,"
a requirement from OSHA's Field Sanitation standard (Sec.
1928.110(c)(1)(ii)). The preamble to that standard explained that when
employees work in hot and humid temperatures, the temperature of
drinking water needs to be low enough to encourage them to drink and to
cool their core body temperature (52 FR 16087). Some shipyard employees
also work in very hot and humid environments. Cool water could help
promote adequate hydration and reduce the risk of heat-related
illnesses. OSHA requests comment on this issue. OSHA seeks information
on the measures that have been implemented to ensure that drinking
water is cool, especially for employees working on board vessels or in
hot and humid weather.
Paragraph (d) Toilet Facilities--Proposed paragraph (d) adopts the
existing requirements on sewered toilets and as noted in Table 3, the
proposal would add a new paragraph (d)(3) to cover portable toilet
facilities, which are not addressed by Sec. 1910.141(c).
Because of the proposed additions for portable toilets, OSHA
proposes to replace the existing term "toilet facility" with the
terms "sewered toilet facility" and "portable toilet facility."
These terms are used in the current ANSI Z4.1 and Z4.3 standards,
respectively (Ex. 3-6, Sec. 2.4; Ex. 3-7, Sec. Sec. 2 and 5). OSHA
proposes to define these terms in Sec. 1915.95. "Sewered toilet
facility" would be defined to mean a fixture that is connected to a
sanitary sewer, septic tank, holding tank (e.g., bilge), or on-site
sewage disposal treatment facility and that is flushed with water. In
contrast, "portable toilet facility" would be defined to mean a non-
sewered toilet that may be either non-flushable, or flushable with
water or a non-water flushing solution. Most portable toilet facilities
used in shipyards are non-flush chemical toilet facilities.
Paragraph (d)(2) Sewered toilet facilities--Minimum number of
sewered toilet facilities. Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would retain the
existing requirements of Sec. 1910.141 for the minimum number of
sewered toilet facilities employers must provide for men and women.
While the required numbers of facilities vary depending on the total
number of employees at the work site, the basic requirement is commonly
referred to as a ratio of one toilet for every 15 employees, and OSHA
will use that terminology. OSHA adopted this requirement (Table J-1 of
Sec. 1910.141) from the 1968 ANSI Z4.1 standard through notice and
comment rulemaking in 1973 (38 FR 10930, 10931 (5/3/1973)). It has been
part of the general industry standards since that time. By contrast to
the OSHA standard, the current ANSI standard has a different table of
ratios (Table 4, ANSI Z4.1-1995), with a basic ratio of 1 toilet per 9
employees. In the three decades since OSHA adopted its standard, nearly
90 percent of the States, at either the State or local level, have
adopted the 2003 International Plumbing Code (IPC 2003), which
incorporates the requirements of the ANSI Z4.1-1995 standard (one
toilet per 9 employees).
Table 4.--ANSI Z4.1-1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of employees Minimum number of stools
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 to 9.................................... 1.
10 to 24.................................. 2.
25 to 49.................................. 3.
50 to 74.................................. 4.
75 to 100................................. 5.
Over 100.................................. 1 for each additional 30
persons.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA requests comment on the proposal to retain the 1:15 toilet
ratio from the existing standard. Should OSHA adopt the 1:9 ratio in
the current ANSI Z4.1 and IPC 2003 standards? Would such adoption
significantly improve OSHA's protection of employee health, and in what
manner? What costs, if any, would result? If OSHA were to adopt the
ANSI/IPC table, should its application be limited in any way, such as
to facilities built after a certain date (e.g., the date the ANSI or
IPC standards were adopted)?
Questions have been raised about whether toilet facilities are
distributed adequately throughout shipyards. As noted earlier, the
field sanitation and ANSI standards establish more specific
requirements for location of toilet facilities relative to the location
of the employee, 1/4 mile and 200 feet, respectively (Sec.
1928.110(c)(2)(iii); ANSI Z4.1, Sec. 5.1.1 (Ex. 3-6)). OSHA requests
comment on whether the final rule should contain specific requirements
for the location of toilet facilities in shipyards. If not, why not? If
so, what specifications should OSHA use? Should the same or different
specifications apply for both sewered and portable toilets? Please
explain.
Portable toilet facilities. As discussed in Table 3, proposed Sec.
1915.88(d)(3) would allow employers to supplement the required numbers
of sewered toilet facilities with either sewered or portable toilet
facilities. OSHA's Marine Terminals, Longshoring, Construction, and
Field Sanitation standards all permit the use of portable toilet
facilities (Sec. Sec. 1917.127(a)(1)(iv); 1918.95(a)(1)(iv);
1926.51(c)(3); 1928.110(b); see also ANSI Z4.1 Sec. Sec. 2.9 and 6.4).
OSHA believes that allowing the use of portable toilet facilities
in this manner will enhance employee safety and health and will not
result in any adverse effects. This provision is justified by the
significant improvements in portable toilet technology in recent years.
Portable toilet facilities now contain the type of equipment necessary
to provide for employee health needs at levels approaching that of the
existing standard. For example, many portable toilet facilities are now
manufactured with handwashing facilities that include hand towels,
waste receptacles, and either running water or waterless cleaning
agents. In addition, some portable facilities have flushable toilets
(Ex. 2-3).
Allowing the use of portable toilet facilities will encourage
employers to provide more facilities than the minimum required by the
standard. It will enable them to provide such additional facilities
without incurring construction expenses and inconvenience. OSHA
believes that by allowing employers to also provide portable toilets,
employers would be more likely to provide toilets in numbers that are
closer to the 1 to 9 ratio in the ANSI Z4.1 and Z4.3 standards (Exs. 3-
6; 3-7).
Permitting the use of portable toilets would allow and encourage
employers to provide facilities in those work locations where it is
extremely difficult if not impracticable to have sewage carriage
systems. For example, employers could provide them on vessels, in dry
docks, and in work locations where local plumbing or building codes
prohibit installation of sewage systems. Allowing the use of portable
toilet facilities also gives employers more flexibility in responding
to changing workplace conditions. For example, it allows employers to
respond quickly when work moves from location to location within the
shipyard.
Finally, OSHA believes that allowing portable toilet facilities
will enhance employee safety and health because it makes these
facilities more accessible and thus more likely to be used. As
mentioned, this is particularly important in work areas onboard
vessels, where a significant portion of shipyard employees work and
where sewered facilities may not be practicable.
OSHA requests comment on the proposed requirements for portable
toilet facilities. What additional requirements, if any, should the
final rule include in order to ensure that portable toilet facilities
provide a level of service close to that provided by sewered toilet
facilities?
OSHA is considering adding a provision that would require employers
to provide portable toilet facilities in certain areas where it is
unlikely sewered facilities could be installed such as in those areas
of the workplace where there is a lack of water or the temporary nature
of the work makes installing sewered toilet facilities impracticable.
These work areas may include work onboard vessels and vessel sections
and in dry docks. OSHA requests comment on whether the final rule
should require employers to provide portable toilet facilities in these
types of situations. If not, why not? If so, in what situations should
they be required? How many portable toilets, at a minimum, should
employers be required to provide? For instance, should OSHA adopt the
ratios (i.e., toilets per employees) established in the ANSI Z4.3
standard?
OSHA requests comment on the use of portable toilet facilities in
shipyards. When and where are portable toilet facilities used? What
factors determine how many to provide and when and where to provide
them?
Exemption. In paragraphs (d)(4) and (e)(3), OSHA proposes to
combine and retain provisions exempting employers from providing toilet
and handwashing facilities for mobile crews and for employees working
in normally unattended worksites, provided that these employees have
immediately available transportation to readily accessible sanitation
facilities that meet the requirements of this section. The availability
of vehicles at a worksite does not necessarily mean that the employees
at that worksite are a "mobile crew." OSHA has interpreted the term
"mobile crew" to be limited to employees who continually or
frequently move from jobsite to jobsite on a daily or hourly basis and
to exclude employees who report to a worksite for days, weeks, or
longer (Ex. 2-21; OSHA letter of interpretation to Nicolas Mertz, June
7, 2002).
For the purposes of these exceptions, "immediately available
transportation" means that the vehicle is already at the specific
worksite or can be summoned quickly enough so employees are able to get
to facilities quickly. OSHA has interpreted "nearby" facilities as
being within ten minutes of the employees work area (Ex. 2-21). Nearby
toilet facilities must be in clean, sanitary and serviceable condition,
and adequate for the number of employees who need to use them. Nearby
handwashing facilities would have to be equipped with waterless
cleaning agents or soap, water (i.e., hot and cold or lukewarm), and
hand towels or warm air blowers.
OSHA requests comment on the proposed exemption. Should OSHA limit
these exemptions in any way? For example, with the increasing
availability of waterless cleaning agents, should OSHA require that
mobile crews be provided with such supplies? What measures do shipyards
currently use to ensure that mobile crews have immediate access to
transportation to nearby toilet facilities?
Paragraph (e) Handwashing Facilities--Location of handwashing
facilities. In paragraph (e)(1), OSHA proposes to add a requirement
that handwashing facilities be located "at or adjacent to each toilet
facility," sewered and portable toilet facilities alike. This
provision is necessary, in major part, to ensure that employees' health
needs are met in those worksites where portable toilet facilities are
or will be used. Some portable toilet facilities are not equipped with
handwashing facilities and separate or stand-alone facilities are not
always placed next to or close to portable toilets. This is
particularly true onboard vessels and vessel sections. Often, employees
must go to landside facilities, which may be located a significant
distance away, to clean their hands. As a result, employees may not
clean their hands when they are exposed to contaminants, after using a
portable toilet, or before eating, drinking, or smoking, which puts
them at risk of adverse health effects.
OSHA believes the proposed performance language gives employers
flexibility in complying and should not pose problems, even at
worksites where there is a lack of piped water or sewer lines. Many
portable toilet facilities manufactured today contain either
handwashing facilities or waterless cleaning agents. In addition,
portable, stand-alone hand cleaning facilities are available and can be
placed adjacent to portable toilet facilities. A single stand-alone
handwashing facility may be able to serve several portable toilet
facilities that are placed in one location. OSHA requests comment on
the proposal.
Hand cleaning agents. OSHA proposes in paragraph (e)(2) to revise
the existing requirements (Sec. 1910.141(d)(2)(ii) and (iii)) to allow
handwashing facilities to be equipped with either (1) soap and hot and
cold or lukewarm running water, or (2) waterless cleaning agents. The
existing standard, as well as most of OSHA's other sanitation
standards, requires that handwashing facilities have soap and running
water (Sec. Sec. 1910.141(d)(2)(ii) and (iii), 1910.142(f)(3),
1917.127(a)(1)(i) and (ii), 1918.95(a)(1)(i) and (ii), 1928.110(b)).
However, the Bloodborne Pathogens standard permits the use of alternatives
(e.g., antiseptic hand cleaners) in limited circumstances (Sec.
1910.1030(d)(2)(iii) and (iv)).
OSHA has not proposed that the use of waterless cleaning agents be
limited to those situations in which the lack of water or the temporary
nature of the installation makes running water impracticable. OSHA does
not believe the limitation is necessary since it is likely that
waterless agents will be used most often in conjunction with portable
toilet facilities. Whatever cleaning agents are used, the employer will
be responsible for ensuring that they are effective in disinfecting the
skin or removing the contaminants to which employees are exposed. In
addition, the employer must select waterless agents that will not
result in absorption of contaminants, sensitization of the skin, or
other adverse health effects.
In OSHA's rulemaking on Bloodborne Pathogens, a number of
organizations, including the Association for Professionals in Infection
Control (APIC), the American Red Cross, Johns Hopkins University, and
the American Society of Microbiology, supported allowing the use of
waterless cleaners in those situations in which water was not available
(56 FR 64004, 64116-17 (12/6/1991)). The National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) said antiseptic hand cleaners
and disposable disinfectant towelettes also were effective alternatives
for soap and water for employees working in areas where there is a lack
of running water (56 FR 64116). Based on the evidence in the record,
OSHA accepted the use of alternative hand cleaning methods as an
interim measure when soap and water are not feasible (e.g.,
firefighters, EMTs, police, paramedics). As noted in Table 3 above, the
present record contains several studies conducted since that time, all
of which further support the efficacy of waterless cleansers. Recent
studies also show that waterless cleaners such as alcohol-based hand
rubs reduce the number of bacteria on the hand more effectively than
soap and water (Ex. 2-24). Alcohol gels, for instance, have been found
to have excellent immediate antimicrobial effects and may reduce skin
irritation that can occur from frequent washing with soap and water
(Ex. 2-22). However, in certain circumstances they may accelerate the
absorption of contaminants through the skin.
A number of shipyard operations are done at worksites where it may
be difficult to provide running water and soap. Therefore, based on
recent information and evidence, OSHA believes there is a practical
need to allow the use of waterless cleaning and decontamination
products in shipyards.
OSHA requests comment on the proposal to allow the optional use of
waterless cleaning agents. In your establishment, to what extent are
waterless cleaning agents used? If waterless cleaners are used, have
they been received favorably by employees, and have employees
experienced any problems with the cleaners (e.g., allergic reaction)?
Paragraph (j) Vermin control--OSHA proposes to revise the
application of the existing requirement (Sec. 1910.141(a)(5)) on
vermin control to make the provision more appropriate to shipyard
employment. The existing requirement to clean and maintain the
workplace in a manner that prevents the harborage of vermin only
applies to "enclosed" workplaces. Proposed paragraph (j)(1) would
extend its application by requiring the employer to take those steps
necessary to control vermin throughout the shipyard. Thus, employers
would need to expand their vermin control efforts to include outdoor
worksites. Evidence in the record shows that employees working at
outdoor worksites, as well as in enclosed spaces, need to be protected
from the hazards associated with exposure to vermin (Ex. 2-12). For
example, employees working near water are at risk of disease if
mosquito populations are not adequately controlled. In addition, birds
and rodents can transmit disease directly and through their feces (see
http://www.hhs.gov and http://www.cdc.gov for information on vermin
related diseases).
At the same time, OSHA recognizes that it is not possible to
prevent all vermin, especially birds and insects, from entering outdoor
worksites. Therefore, the proposal retains the existing provision
requiring employers to take only those steps that are "reasonably
practicable" to prevent the harborage of vermin.
In paragraph (j)(2), OSHA proposes to retain unchanged the existing
requirement (Sec. 1910.141(a)(5)) that employers implement and
maintain an effective control program where vermin are detected. OSHA
proposes to define "vermin" to include insects, birds, and other
animals, such as rodents and feral cats (proposed Sec. 1915.95).
OSHA requests comment on the proposed vermin control provisions.
What vermin are present and what types of controls are used to prevent
their harborage in shipyard worksites?
Section 1915.89 Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout)
In Sec. 1915.89, OSHA proposes to add requirements addressing the
control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout) during the servicing of
machines, equipment and systems. The approach OSHA is proposing to
adopt is that of the general industry standard (Sec. 1910.147), with
minor revisions. (The general industry standard does not apply to
shipyard employment.) The following discussion covers the need for a
comprehensive lockout/tagout rule in shipyards, why OSHA is proposing
to adopt the general industry approach, the requirements of the general
industry standard, and the differences between proposed Sec. 1915.89
and Sec. 1910.147. In addition, this section includes an in-depth
discussion of the application of the lockout/tagout standard while
servicing commercial vessels, such as fish processing vessels. While
OSHA welcomes comments on any and all aspects of the proposed standard,
the discussion also includes specific issues for which OSHA is seeking
comment on the proposal.
The need for a comprehensive lockout/tagout standard in shipyards.
OSHA believes that a comprehensive rule protecting shipyard employees
from hazardous energy during servicing, maintenance and repair
operations is needed for several reasons. First, information in the
record indicates that potential hazardous energy exposures are present
throughout shipyard employment, on vessels and vessel sections as well
as in landside operations (Exs. 9, 11). Servicing operations, which
include activities such as constructing, installing and repairing
equipment, are some of the riskiest operations in shipyard employment.
For example, employees servicing ship's systems face considerable risk
of injury from energization of those systems because they are often
large and complex, and frequently have multiple power sources. That
risk is compounded further when ships' crews and outside contractors
also work onboard the vessel, which is a common occurrence.
There are numerous injuries and fatalities in shipyard employment
that would be prevented by an effective lockout/tagout program.
According to 2002 data from the BLS annual survey of occupational
injuries and illnesses, in 30.3 percent of the shipyard injury and
illness cases involving days away from work, the case resulted from
contact with an object or equipment, and 1.8 percent of the cases
resulted from being caught in equipment. According to BLS CFOI data
from 1993-2002, 10 shipyard fatalities (6.3%) resulted from
contact with electrical current and 31 fatalities (19.5%) occurred
because of contact with objects and equipment. OSHA's IMIS database
also indicates that there have been numerous fatalities in shipyards
that the proposed (lockout/tagout) provisions could prevent. Some of
these fatalities are discussed below.
In 2000, one employee was killed when he was crushed by a
steering mechanism. Four employees were repairing the steering
mechanism on a tow boat, which functions from electricity and
hydraulics. The electricity was deenergized and secured, but the
residual energy from the hydraulics was not relieved and rendered safe.
The proposed provisions for stored energy may have prevented this
fatality.
In 1999, an employee installing a support cable was
electrocuted when he came into contact with the energized high-voltage
line that he was servicing. A secondary switch that should have been
locked open to deenergize an electrical panel had been left closed. The
proposed procedures to isolate and verify deenergization may have
prevented this accident.
In 1998, a shipyard employee was killed and another
seriously injured when an elevator was energized while they were
working under the edge of the flight deck on an aircraft carrier.
Movement of the elevator during servicing could have been prevented if
the elevator energy isolating device had been locked or tagged out.
In 1996, an employee was killed and another was burned
while checking a hydraulic power unit. The hose of the test gauge came
in contact with an exposed, energized conductor in the motor start
panel, which caused the hose to rupture and ignite the hydraulic fluid.
Under the proposed lockout/tagout provisions, this accident could have
been prevented because all systems would have been deenergized and
deenergization would have been verified.
In 1996, an employee was killed while working inside a
480-volt electrical cabinet. The disconnecting means for the cabinet
were not properly identified, and the cabinet was not tested before
work began. By following the proposed provisions for applying lockout/
tagout devices and verification of isolation, this fatality may have
been prevented.
In 1990, an employee was killed while replacing an
electric motor on a crane because the crane's brake was not locked.
When the crane motor was unbolted, its drum and gear started spinning
due to stored energy in the crane's cables and weights. The employee
was struck with flying parts and killed. The proposed provisions would
have ensured that before beginning work the energy would have been
isolated, the machine deenergized, and the deenergization verified.
Second, the proposal is needed because the comprehensive general
industry lockout/tagout standard exempts "maritime employment" from
its scope (Sec. 1910.147(a)(1)(ii)). In the preamble to the final
general industry standard, OSHA explained that shipyard employment was
excluded not because working conditions were less hazardous, which the
discussion above demonstrates, but rather because the unique nature of
this industry and the means to minimize injury to employees required
additional analysis and consideration, which had not been adequately
addressed during the lockout/tagout rulemaking (FR 36644, 36657-58 (9/
1/1989)). As a result, OSHA had insufficient information about
hazardous energy in shipyard employment and about whether the general
industry approach would address those hazards effectively. OSHA said it
would continue to review information on hazardous energy in shipyard
employment, evaluate the need to initiate rulemaking, and determine
whether the general industry rule, or an appropriate modification of
that rule, would provide optimal protection for shipyard employees.
OSHA also said the Agency would present these matters to SESAC for
consideration as part of the committee's review of shipyard standards.
In 1993, after discussing the issues at length, SESAC recommended that
OSHA adopt a comprehensive lockout/tagout standard (Docket SESAC 1993-
3, Ex. 104X).
Third, a lockout/tagout rule is needed because the existing
lockout/tagout provisions currently applicable to shipyard employment
(Sec. Sec. 1910.331-.335, 1915.162-.164, 1915.181) do not provide
comprehensive or adequate protection for shipyard employees. For
example, most of the existing provisions in part 1915 only address a
limited number of servicing operations onboard vessels and do not
address hazardous energy in landside operations. Conversely, the
applicable general industry electrical safety requirements (Sec. Sec.
1910.331-.335) apply only to landside operations and when shore-based
electrical installations provide power for use aboard vessels, and do
not cover qualified persons working on a vessel's permanently installed
electrical system.
The requirements in the existing applicable provisions also are not
as protective as the comprehensive procedures and requirements in the
general industry standard. The existing provisions in part 1915
establish specific, but isolated, practices for controlling hazardous
energy and none establish a comprehensive program for addressing those
risks. For example, none of the existing part 1915 provisions require
written lockout/tagout procedures, employee training, verification of
deenergization or isolation, or periodic inspection, all of which the
general industry standard requires (see Table 5).
The existing applicable lockout/tagout provisions also do not
provide a consistent approach. As Table 5 shows, the provisions have a
range of different approaches for shutting off, isolating and securing
or otherwise protecting employees from reenergization. For example,
when employees work on ship's boilers they must tagout and provide a
second isolation of the energy, while employees working on electrical
machinery must tagout and check the energy at the point of work. The
proposed shipyard lockout/tagout standard would establish uniform
minimum procedures that shipyard employers would have to follow in all
shipyard servicing operations to protect their employees.
Table 5.--Comparison of General Industry and Shipyard Lockout/Tagout Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source/standard Means required to Second isolation Layers of Number of Deenergization Required to check Employee training Written procedure Periodic
secure energy required when isolation isolations under verification energy at point required? required? inspection
isolating device tagout device required employee required? of work? required?
used? "control" *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1910.147** General Lockout Program... Lock............... Not Applicable.... 1................. 1................. Yes............... Yes............... Yes............... Yes............... Yes.
Industry lockout tagout.
Tagout Program.... Tag................ Usually........... Usually 2......... 0 Or 1............ Yes............... Yes............... Yes............... Yes............... Yes.
Part 1910 Subpart S Electrical. .................. Tag................ Yes............... 2................. 1................. Yes............... Yes............... Yes............... No................ No.
Sec. 1915.162 Ship's Boilers. Bolted Valves..... Tag................ Yes............... 2................. 1................. No................ No................ No................ No................ No.
Welded Valves..... Lock & Tag......... Yes............... 2................. 2................. No................ No................ No................ No................ No.
Sec. 1915.163 Ship's Piping .................. Tag................ Yes............... 2................. 2................. No................ No................ No................ No................ No.
Systems.
Sec. 1915.164 Ships' Steam............. Lock & Tag......... Yes............... 1................. 1................. No................ No................ No................ No................ No.
Propulsion Machinery.
Electrical Breaker Tag................ Yes............... 1................. 1................. No................ No................ No................ No................ No.
Electrical Fuse... Tag................ Yes............... 2................. 1................. No................ No................ No................ No................ No.
Sec. 1915.181 Subpart L .................. Tag................ Yes............... 1................. 2................. Yes............... Yes............... No................ No................ No.
Electrical Machinery.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Employee "control" means either a lock or an employee-made isolation layer.
** Only Sec. 1910.147, which exempts maritime employment, requires a comprehensive lockout/tagout program.
Why OSHA is proposing to adopt the general industry approach? Based
on a review of the information and consultations with SESAC, the Agency
is proposing to adopt, with limited modifications, the same approach
and requirements as the general industry lockout/tagout standard. OSHA
believes this approach is appropriate for several reasons. First, the
general industry standard has provided effective protection for
affected employees. A lookback review of the general industry standard,
conducted pursuant to Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and Section 5 of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
concluded that the standard had been effective in reducing fatalities
(65 FR 38302 (6/20/2002)). The review also concluded that the standard
did not impose a significant impact on small business.
In addition to these analyses, commenters who participated in the
lookback review, including companies (e.g., Bell Atlantic and Kodak),
unions (e.g., United Auto Workers, United Steel Workers of America, and
the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers), employer groups
(e.g., Organization Resources Counselors, Inc.), and professional
societies (e.g., the American Society of Safety Engineers), stated that
the standard had been effective in saving lives and preventing
injuries. Most comments supported continuation of the standard because
it had been effective in achieving its employee protection goals (65 FR
38304).
Second, many shipyard employers already have implemented lockout/
tagout programs modeled on the general industry standard, and have
reported that these programs have been effective in reducing the risk
of harm associated with servicing operations. In addition, SESAC
recommended using the proposed general industry approach as the
framework for a recommended lockout/tagout rule for shipyards (Docket
SESAC 1993-3, Ex. 104X, p).
Third, OSHA believes that the comprehensive energy control
procedures, which are the cornerstone of the general industry standard,
are particularly appropriate for addressing the types of workplace
conditions and hazardous energy that are present in shipyard
employment. The comprehensive procedures consist primarily of steps for
deenergization, isolation of equipment from energy sources, and
verification of deenergization before servicing operations are begun.
OSHA believes that isolation of equipment from the energy sources in
combination with adherence to established deenergization and
energization procedures, and not just the application of locks or tags,
is what ensures that employees are adequately protected (54 FR 36655).
Locks and tags are applied after machines or equipment have been
isolated. If equipment is not properly isolated and the procedures for
deenergization and verification are not followed, neither application
of a lock nor a tag will fully ensure employees are protected. This is
especially true where systems, such as ship's systems, are complex,
have several energy sources, or are serviced at the same time by many
employees or crews who may work for different employers.
The comprehensive isolation and deenergization procedures in the
general industry standard are also important where systems are not
capable of being locked out, which is the situation for many ship's
systems since shipyard employers do not own the ship's systems they
service. In addition, the procedures the standard requires address
conditions that are commonly present in shipyards, including multiple
employer worksites and group servicing operations by multiple crews.
Because of the range of workplace factors present in shipyard servicing
operations, OSHA believes the comprehensive energy procedures in the
general industry standard are necessary and appropriate to ensure that
shipyard employees are adequately protected. Moreover, adopting the
standard's employee training requirements will help to ensure that
employees understand and adhere to the energy control procedures.
Fourth, OSHA believes that the general industry standard is
appropriate because shipyard employment also includes landside
operations, which are quite similar to general industry worksites.
Landside facilities, such as metal fabrication shops, machine shops,
electrical shops, sheet metal shops, and paint shops, are analogous to
general industry shops performing the same types of work. Thus, the
general industry requirements are readily applicable and appropriate
for those operations.
Fifth, OSHA believes the general industry standard will be
effective in controlling hazardous energy in complex shipyard work
environments and in servicing complex ship's systems because the
standard has proven effective under the same types of complex
conditions found in general industry. The general industry lockout/
tagout standard has been applied to approximately one million
facilities, including complex chemical plants, petroleum refineries,
nuclear power plants and motor vehicle assembly operations (65 FR
38303). The standard has been used to protect employees manufacturing
sophisticated transportation equipment, such as train locomotives,
aircraft and space vehicles. The general industry standard has also
been applied in the manufacturing of complex military equipment, such
as tanks, weapons systems and guided missiles.
Similar to ship's systems, some equipment and systems used in
general industry have multiple sources and types of energy, back-up
energy sources, and separate circuits for critical power needs (e.g.,
lighting). In addition, servicing operations in various general
industry workplaces involve systems that may be located far away from
system energy sources, just as energy sources of ship's systems are
often located landside. Both general industry and shipyard servicing
operations often involve contractors, work on equipment and systems the
employer does not own, and have great variations in the equipment and
systems being serviced.
Even though there may be some unique conditions in shipyards, OSHA
believes that the flexibility of the general industry standard ensures
that it will be effective in controlling hazardous energy in shipyard
servicing operations. OSHA requests comment on the proposal to apply
the general industry lockout/tagout standard to shipyard employment.
Are there any unique conditions in shipyards that make the general
industry standard incompatible or inapplicable to shipyard employment?
If so, please describe those conditions. The performance-based approach
of the general industry standard gives employers flexibility in
determining the type of energy control procedures that would most
effectively protect shipyard employees who are servicing particular
machines, equipment and systems. This flexibility will also allow
shipyard employers to tailor their energy control procedures so they
adequately address specific conditions that may have unique
applications in shipyard servicing operations.
Adopting a lockout/tagout rule for shipyards that is consistent
with the general industry requirements has several advantages. Colleges
and safety and health training providers have trained large numbers of
safety and health professionals on the general industry standard.
Having similar standards for shipyards would help to ensure that there
are adequate numbers of trained safety and health professionals
available to help shipyard employers as they implement the
standard. It would also ensure that the numerous lockout/tagout
publications and outreach materials OSHA has developed for the general
industry standard are useable and immediately available to help
shipyards comply with the provisions and protect their employees.
Moreover, it would mean that the materials NIOSH, the states, and
private organizations have developed for the general industry standard
could be easily applied to shipyards.
Control of Hazardous Energy Onboard Commercial Vessels. OSHA
proposes to include language in both proposed Sec. 1915.89 and
existing Sec. 1910.147 to clarify several issues concerning the
application of the hazardous energy standards to servicing operations
onboard commercial vessels. In large part, these proposed additions are
in response to recent events that have raised concerns about how OSHA
covers the serious hazards associated with servicing of equipment and
systems on fish processing vessels.
Fish processing vessels, often called "floating fish factories,"
are commercial vessels that eviscerate, clean and prepare fresh, frozen
and canned seafood. Generally, fish processing vessels perform the same
operations and use the same types of equipment as landside fish
processing plants; they just do so at sea. These vessels usually set
anchor in fishing grounds for weeks or months at a time, processing
fish and seafood that fishing boats unload onto them (Ex. 16-1). Some
vessels, known as catcher/processors, also catch the seafood they
process (Exs.16-1 through 16-3). Fish processing equipment onboard
these vessels, as in landside facilities, is specific to the type of
seafood being processed. Thus, at the end of each fishing season when
the vessel returns to port new equipment is installed to process fish
that will be caught during the next fishing season (Ex. 16-2).
OSHA estimates that there are about 200 U.S. fish processing
vessels operating in and traveling through U.S. territorial waters
(Exs. 16-1; 16-4). While the number of employees working on fish
processing vessels is difficult to ascertain, OSHA estimates that each
vessel employs about 100 to 120 processing employees, who live on the
vessel throughout the season, for a total of approximately 2,500
employees (Ex. 16-2).
The need to address the hazards associated with servicing fish
processing equipment was brought to OSHA's attention by a serious
accident onboard a fish processing vessel working in the Bering Sea. On
October 16, 2005, an employee, who was cleaning a vat used to process
fish paste onboard a fish processing vessel, was seriously injured when
the augers at the bottom of the vat suddenly started up. The churning
augers trapped the employee's feet and legs and drew them into the
machinery. It took coworkers two hours to free the employee from the
machinery and another half day for a helicopter to arrive and airlift
her off the vessel. The employee was flown to a hospital in Anchorage,
Alaska, where her legs had to be amputated below the knees (Ex. 16-3).
Recently published injury statistics on the commercial fishing
industry also support the need to address hazardous energy during
servicing operations onboard floating fish factories. A study of
serious injuries from 1991-98, collected by the Alaska Trauma Registry,
determined that injuries related to fish processing equipment onboard
vessels were the leading cause of injury in the industry (Ex. 16-5).
These injuries accounted for more than one half of all injuries
reported and many could have been prevented by implementing programs to
control hazardous energy and applying lockout/tagout systems during
servicing.
In light of these incidents, OSHA proposes to change its existing
policy on the coverage of servicing and maintenance activities onboard
commercial vessels, particularly fish processing vessels. In short,
OSHA proposes adding language to Sec. 1915.89 and Sec. 1910.147
specifying that:
Proposed Sec. 1915.89 applies to the servicing of ship's
systems by any employee, including but not limited to, ship's officers
and crew of the vessel (see proposed Sec. 1915.89(a)(2)(i)(A));
Proposed Sec. 1915.89 applies to the servicing of
machines, equipment and systems that employees use in the course of
performing shipyard employment operations (see proposed Sec.
1915.89(a)(2)(i)(B)); and
Existing Sec. 1910.147, and not proposed Sec. 1915.89,
applies to the servicing of equipment onboard vessels that is used for
inherently general industry operations such as fish processing (see
Sec. 1910.147(a) and proposed Sec. 1915.89(a)(2)(iii)(C)).
Background and current policy. In order to fully explain OSHA's
proposed changes, it is important to understand OSHA's current policy
on the coverage of commercial vessels. This section discusses OSHA and
U.S. Coast Guard authority over vessels, OSHA's current exemption of
maritime employment from Sec. 1910.147, and OSHA's current policy
concerning application of Sec. 1910.147 to floating fish processors.
Coast Guard/OSHA authority over vessels. Both OSHA and the U.S.
Coast Guard have authority for the safety and health of employees
onboard vessels. The Coast Guard has statutory authority to prescribe
and enforce regulations affecting safety and health onboard inspected
vessels and has exercised that authority. Therefore, OSHA does not have
authority over those vessels (29 U.S.C. 653(b)(1); Chao v. Mallard Bay
Drilling, Inc. (Mallard Bay), 534 U.S. 235 (2002); Ex. 16-6; CPL 02-01-
020 Coast Guard/OSHA Authority Over Vessels, 11/8/1996). However, OSHA
does have authority over uninspected vessels (hereafter "commercial
vessels") to the extent that the U.S. Coast Guard has not regulated a
specific hazard or working condition (Mallard Bay, 534 U.S. at 244-45;
Ex. 16-6). Almost all vessels used in the fish processing industry are
uninspected, therefore they are within OSHA's authority (Ex. 16-6).
Moreover, to date, the Coast Guard has not regulated the control of
hazardous energy during the servicing and maintenance of equipment on
commercial vessels. Therefore, OSHA has authority to regulate hazardous
energy onboard commercial vessels. (OSHA notes that the Coast Guard has
issued a limited regulation on machine guarding during production
operations. See 46 CFR 28.215; 56 FR 40364, 40374 (8/14/1991)
("Running machinery is required to have hand covers, guards or
railings to reduce the chance of personnel being inured while working
around the moving gears, belts, and chains").
Where OSHA has authority over commercial vessels, the Agency
generally has applied part 1910 standards to control hazardous working
conditions (Ex. 16-6). However, OSHA has applied part 1915, and not the
general industry lockout/tagout standard, to controlling hazardous
energy during "ship repair" operations onboard commercial vessels.
Ship repair is defined at Sec. 1915.4(j) as "any repair of a vessel
including, but not restricted to, alterations, conversions,
installations, cleaning, painting, and maintenance work." Pursuant to
that definition, OSHA has interpreted ship repair as including the
servicing of all equipment and systems on commercial vessels,
regardless of who performs the operation or whether the equipment is a
permanent or inherent part of the vessel or a temporary fixture
unrelated to the vessel's core navigation functions (Exs. 16-7; 16-8).
"Maritime employment" exemption. OSHA's current policy has been
derived from language in the general industry lockout/tagout standard
(Sec. 1910.147, 54 FR 36644) and Agency interpretations of it. The general
industry lockout/tagout standard explicitly exempts "maritime employment"
from coverage (Sec. 1910.147(a)(1)(ii)(A)). Although the standard and its
preamble do not define maritime employment, in the preamble OSHA
pointed to shipyard employment, longshoring and marine terminals as
examples (54 FR 36655, 36657-36659).
The preamble cited several reasons for excluding maritime
employment. OSHA said that including maritime employment, with its
"unique situations and work practices * * * would unduly complicate
development of a generic energy control standard for general industry"
(54 FR 36657). OSHA also said a lockout/tagout standard likely could be
applied quite differently in maritime than in general industry. As a
result, the general industry rule might need to be modified
considerably in order to provide optimal protection for maritime
employees. However, the process of examining maritime employment and
modifying the rule to address those issues would delay providing needed
protection for millions of general industry employees. OSHA also
explained that it did not have adequate information in the lockout/
tagout record on hazardous energy hazards in shipyard employment,
marine terminals and longshoring to support including them in the
standard.
In exempting maritime employment, OSHA noted that part 1915 has
provisions that address deenergization during the servicing of certain
vessel systems and equipment (54 FR 36657). Those provisions, in
subparts J and L, pertain to ship's systems and machinery (e.g., Sec.
1915.162 Ship's boilers; Sec. 1915.163 Ship's piping systems; Sec.
1915.163 Ship's propulsion machinery) and electrical circuits and
distribution boards (Sec. 1915.181). Although part 1915 does not
define "ship's systems," generally the term is used to describe
systems and equipment that are an inherent and permanent part of a
vessel. The provisions in subparts J and L do not address the servicing
of other types of equipment onboard vessels, such as fish processing
equipment, and there are no other part 1915 standards addressing
hazardous energy during the servicing of such equipment.
Interpretation of Sec. 1910.147. After OSHA issued the general
industry lockout/tagout standard, the Agency received two inquiries
about its application to commercial vessels, specifically fish
processing vessels. The first inquiry, in 1991, asked OSHA to clarify
whether Sec. 1910.147 applies to servicing "the factory portion of
floating fish processors" (Ex. 16-7). OSHA responded that the
maintenance of "any equipment" onboard vessels is included in the
maritime exemption from Sec. 1910.147. OSHA explained that the
maritime employment exemption applies to "shipyard employment," which
includes "ship repair" (Sec. Sec. 1910.15(a), 1915.4(i)). The Agency
concluded that the definition of ship repair ("any repair of a vessel
including, but not restricted to, alterations, conversions,
installations, cleaning, painting, and maintenance work") was broad
enough to include maintenance work on "any equipment on a vessel,
including fish processing equipment" (Ex. 16-7).
In the second inquiry, from the Arctic Alaska Fisheries Corporation
in 1994, OSHA confirmed its previous interpretation of the maritime
employment exemption, again concluding that part 1915 applies to
maintenance of any equipment onboard "all commercial vessels" (Ex.
16-8). (See also, Ex. 16-9, OSHA's Shipyard "Tool Bag" Directive CPL
02-00-142, confirming the earlier interpretations.) The current OSHA
policy embedded in these interpretations is that fish processing or
other equipment installed on vessels for any purpose is considered part
of the vessel; accordingly, repair of that equipment is ship repair
under part 1915.
Proposed additions and changes. The most significant of the
additions that OSHA proposes, Sec. 1915.89(a)(2)(iii)(C) and Sec.
1910.147(a)(1)(ii)(B), clarify how the Agency, in the future, intends
to cover the control of hazardous energy onboard commercial vessels
during the servicing of equipment used for fish processing and other
inherently general industry operations. There are two options: (1)
follow the existing policy of classifying such servicing operations as
"ship repair" and continue to cover them under proposed Sec.
1915.89, or (2) classify such servicing as general industry operations
and cover them under the general industry lockout/tagout standard
(Sec. 1910.147).
The first option, applying proposed Sec. 1915.89 to all equipment
onboard commercial vessels, would result in a single standard for
servicing operations onboard vessels. The single standard would apply
regardless of whether the servicing involves ship's systems or fish
processing equipment or whether it is done at a shipyard or at sea. In
other respects, however, this option would result in the application of
different standards to fish processing employees and employers, which
might result in confusion. For fish processing employees, it would mean
that part 1910 standards would apply when they process fish and operate
the equipment for production, but proposed Sec. 1915.89 would apply
when they clean or perform maintenance work on that same equipment. For
employers who have both landside operations and floating fish
processing facilities, it also would mean that proposed Sec. 1915.89
would apply to servicing fish processing equipment on vessels, but
Sec. 1910.147 would apply to servicing the same equipment at landside
facilities.
The second option, applying Sec. 1910.147 to the servicing of fish
processing and other inherently general industry equipment onboard
vessels, will result in more uniform application of standards to fish
processing and other general industry operations onboard commercial
vessels. To illustrate, this option means that fish processing
employees, who operate the processing equipment for production and
perform the vast majority of all servicing of that equipment, will be
uniformly covered by part 1910 standards during both the production and
servicing operations. And for fish processing employers, part 1910
standards, including Sec. 1910.147, would apply at both their landside
and vessel-based fish processing operations.
The second option, however, will not result in completely uniform
application of standards onboard vessels. Under option two, proposed
Sec. 1915.89 would apply to the servicing of ship's systems (i.e.,
systems and equipment that are an inherent and permanent part of the
vessel), while Sec. 1910.147 would apply to the servicing of
inherently general industry equipment such as fish processing
equipment. To determine which lockout/tagout standard applies, fish
processing employers would have to determine first whether the
equipment or system is an inherent and permanent part of the vessel
(e.g., propulsion, navigation, electrical, ballast systems) or is used
for performing inherently general industry operations.
For several reasons, OSHA believes it is appropriate to apply Sec.
1910.147, and not proposed Sec. 1915.89, to the servicing of
inherently general industry equipment onboard vessels. First, fish
processing and other general industry equipment are not core components
of a vessel, but rather equipment placed on a vessel after the core
vessel is built. In many cases general industry equipment may only be a
temporary fixture on a vessel. As mentioned, fish processing equipment
is changed typically at the end of every fishing season (Ex. 16-2).
Given that, OSHA does not believe the equipment used to perform
inherently general industry operations is part of the "vessel" or that
those servicing operations constitute the repair of it.
Second, fish processing and other inherently general industry
operations onboard vessels are more closely associated with landside
general industry operations than with shipbuilding, ship repairing,
shipbreaking and related employment. For example, fish processing
equipment onboard vessels is serviced almost exclusively by fish
processing employees and not shipyard employees or others who regularly
service ship's systems. This is true regardless of where the equipment
is serviced--at sea, at port, or off the vessel. Rarely, if ever, do
shipyard employees service fish processing or other inherently general
industry equipment. When they do, the servicing is done as part of an
overhaul of the entire vessel. At this point, the entire vessel,
including the general industry equipment, is out of commission and the
only operations being performed on or to the vessel are repair and
maintenance. The proposal includes language covering this situation;
specifying that when general industry equipment onboard vessels is
serviced as part of an overhaul of the entire vessel proposed Sec.
1915.89 will apply.
OSHA requests comment on the proposal to apply Sec. 1910.147 to
the servicing of fish processing and other equipment onboard vessels
that is used for performing inherently general industry operations.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of this proposed approach?
Who services equipment onboard vessels that is used to perform
inherently general industry operations? How frequently, if ever, do
shipyard employees service general industry equipment onboard vessels
and when does such servicing occur? What equipment onboard vessels,
other than fish processing equipment, should OSHA classify as being
used to perform inherently general industry operations? Should Sec.
1915.89 or Sec. 1910.147 apply to the servicing of inherently general
industry equipment during an overhaul of the entire vessel? Please
explain.
Servicing of "ship's systems." OSHA proposes that part 1915 will
continue to cover the servicing of all "ship's systems" (proposed
Sec. 1915.89(a)(2)(i)(A)). Proposed Sec. 1915.95 defines ship's
systems as machines, equipment and systems that are a permanent or
inherent part of a vessel. These systems, which are numerous, include
navigation, propulsion, power (e.g., electrical, hydraulic, steam),
piping, ventilation, communication, waste, ballast, structural systems
and systems to care for the crew of the vessel. Essentially, ship's
systems are those systems that ensure the vessel's basic operational
and navigational capability.
OSHA considers the servicing of ship's systems to be precisely the
type of operation that the term "ship repair" was intended to cover.
Servicing of ship's systems entails the repair and maintenance of core
components of vessels. If these components are not maintained in proper
working order, it is unlikely that the vessel will be fully operational
or able to navigate properly. OSHA believes servicing ship's systems is
at the very heart of shipyard employment and proposed Sec. 1915.89
needs to apply.
OSHA notes that the language in proposed Sec. 1915.89(a)(2)(i)(A)
does not limit coverage to servicing ship's systems in certain
locations. OSHA intends that Sec. 1915.89 will apply to the servicing
of ship's systems regardless of where such servicing occurs (e.g., on a
commercial vessel at sea, at a commercial dock, in a shipyard) or who
performs it (e.g., shipyard employees, contractors, fish processing
employees, ship's crew). (See discussion of ship's crew below.)
OSHA believes it is necessary that part 1915 cover the servicing of
all ship's systems in order to ensure that employees performing those
operations are adequately protected from hazardous energy. Part 1915
was established and its standards are designed to address the
"unique" hazards and working conditions associated with working on
ship's systems, equipment and machinery. The hazards associated with
ship's systems are particularly serious because these systems can be
large, complex, and have multiple power sources and isolating devices.
The hazards exist regardless of who services the ship's systems or
where the servicing is done. OSHA believes that employees servicing
ship's systems can best be protected from hazards if such servicing is
covered by the standards designed to address the unique hazards and
complexity of those systems.
Applying proposed Sec. 1915.89 to the servicing of all ship's
systems establishes a uniform set of standards for these systems, which
is particularly necessary to ensure the protection of employees
involved in multiple-employee or multiple-employer servicing
operations. OSHA notes that the proposal includes additional procedures
to further reduce the risk of harm for employees performing those types
of servicing operations. However, these additional procedures will
reduce that risk only if all employees working on the system are
required to follow them. Applying proposed Sec. 1915.89 to all
employers and employees working on ship's systems will accomplish that.
Applying proposed Sec. 1915.89 to the servicing of all ship's
systems will also ensure that employees performing those operations
have the most effective protection possible. These employees will have
the protections of not only Sec. 1915.89, but also the additional
energy control requirements in subparts J and L. Those provisions
establish specific steps that must be taken when servicing certain
ship's systems and power sources, such as blanking piping systems,
locking or removing fuses, and posting conspicuous warning signs where
employees are working. Neither the general industry lockout/tagout
standard, nor the part 1910 electrical standards in subpart S, includes
requirements directed to specific vessel systems (54 FR 36657). OSHA
believes the system-specific protections in subparts J and L are
necessary for all employees working on ship's systems to prevent death
or serious injury from the direct escape of high temperature mediums
used to power the systems (e.g., steam, water or oil) or from powerful
electrical currents.
Finally, including the issue of servicing of ship's systems in this
rulemaking will ensure that the unique hazards those operations pose
are fully examined and discussed. It also enables OSHA to properly
consider the interrelationship between the proposed lockout/tagout
provisions and the specific provisions in subparts J and L, action that
OSHA said was necessary in the lockout/tagout rulemaking (54 FR 36657).
OSHA requests comment on applying proposed Sec. 1915.89 to the
servicing of all ship's systems. Who services ship's systems when the
vessel is at sea? What protection and benefits will result from
applying proposed Sec. 1915.89 to the servicing of all ship's systems?
OSHA also asks for comment on its proposed definition of ship's
systems. What machines, equipment and systems should the definition
include? Does the proposed definition adequately distinguish between
systems that are part of a vessel and equipment that is used for
inherently general industry operations? Are there other approaches that
would more clearly differentiate between those types of equipment and
systems? Please explain.
Machines and equipment used to perform shipyard employment
operations. In proposed Sec. 1915.89(a)(2)(i)(B), OSHA simply codifies
its existing policy that part 1915 applies to the servicing of machines
and equipment used during the course of performing shipyard employment
operations. OSHA considers these servicing operations to be "related
employment" specified in the definition of shipyard employment
(Sec. 1915.4(i)). For example, the proposal covers the servicing of
shore-based power systems used in the construction of ships, automated
blasting equipment to remove paint from vessels, and equipment (e.g.,
metal working equipment) in shipyard shops that is used to make or
modify vessel components (e.g., plates, piping).
Ship's crew. Proposed Sec. 1915.89(a)(2)(i)(A) specifies that
Sec. 1915.89 applies to all servicing of ship's systems regardless of
who performs it. This means that proposed Sec. 1915.89 applies to
ship's officers, crew of commercial vessels, and contractors that
commercial vessel owners and operators hire to service ship's systems
(collectively referred to as "ship's crew").
The proposed provision explicitly clarifies longstanding OSHA
policy that part 1915 applies whenever ship's crew performs ship
repairing operations. That said, OSHA is including the issue in this
rulemaking in order to address concerns that certain courts have raised
about part 1915's coverage provisions.
Although Sec. 1910.15(a) specifies that part 1915 applies to
"every employment and place of employment of every employee engaged in
ship repairing, shipbreaking, and shipbuilding, or related
employment," some language in part 1915 suggests that the part does
not cover certain shipyard employment activities or employees.
Specifically, Sec. 1915.4(d) states:
The term employee means any person engaged in ship repairing,
shipbuilding, shipbreaking or related employments * * * other than
the master, ship's officers, crew of the vessel, or any person
engaged by the master to repair any vessel under 18 net tons.
Section 1915.4 was brought over from the Longshore and Harbor
Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) (33 U.S.C. 901 et seq.), which, along
with the OSH Act, provides OSHA with rulemaking authority over shipyard
employment. Prior to enactment of the OSH Act, the Secretary of Labor,
pursuant to authority under LHWCA, promulgated occupational safety and
health standards for shipbuilding to protect the life, health and
safety of shipyard employees (33 U.S.C. 941(a)).
When Congress enacted the OSH Act in 1970, they authorized OSHA,
within the first two years after the effective date of the OSH Act, to
promulgate as occupational safety and health standards any established
Federal standard (29 U.S.C. 655(a)). Pursuant to this authority, OSHA
adopted all established Federal workplace safety and health standards
in effect as of April 28, 1971, that pertained to employers, employees
and employment covered by the OSH Act (Sec. 1910.11(a), 36 FR 10466
(5/29/1971)). This included the safety and health standards enacted
under the LHWCA.
Since OSH Act coverage, which extends to employers engaged in
business affecting interstate commerce, is broader than LHWCA coverage,
OSHA consistently has held that the Agency is not bound by the coverage
limitations in the LHWCA standards. To clarify this position, OSHA
amended its incorporation by reference of established Federal standards
(37 FR 26008 (12/7/1972)). Specifically, OSHA added paragraph (b) to
Sec. 1910.11 specifying that the Agency was incorporating "only
substantive rules affecting safety and health" from established
Federal standards (37 FR 26008). "The incorporations by reference of
Parts 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918 * * * are not intended to include the
discussion in those parts of the coverage of the Longshoremen's and
Harbor Workers' Compensation Act * * * " (Sec. 1910.11(b)). OSHA
explained that when it adopted the LHWCA safety and health rules the
Agency had "no intention of incorporating [into OSHA rules] * * * any
other rules having special applicability under the laws under which the
`established Federal standards' were initially adopted" (37 FR 26008).
OSHA reiterated its position when the Agency consolidated the ship
repairing, shipbuilding and shipbreaking standards into part 1915
Shipyard Employment (47 FR 16984, 16986 (4/20/1982)).
The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission accepted the
approach OSHA delineated in Sec. 1910.11(b) (Dravo Corporation, 7
O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 2089 (1980)). OSHA also has taken this position in
the courts of appeals, however, three circuits have rejected OSHA's
approach and applied the more restrictive language and limitations of
the LHWCA provisions to cases arising under the OSH Act. Tidewater
Pacific, Inc. v. Herman, 160 F.3d 1239 (9th Cir. 1998); Kopcynski v.
The Jacqueline, 742 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1984); Clary v. Ocean Drilling
and Exploration Co., 609 F.2d 1120 (5th Cir. 1980); Dravo Corporation
v. OSHRC, 613 F.2d 1227 (3rd Cir. 1980).
The court of appeals held in Dravo that, notwithstanding Sec.
1910.11(b), OSHA would be held to the plain language meaning of its
part 1915 standards, including the coverage standards carried over from
the LHWCA. Dravo, 613 F.2d at 1232-3. The language at issue in Dravo
concerned the location of shipyard employment activities, that is,
whether part 1915 covered shipbuilding activities performed at a
waterfront fabrication shop on an island in the Ohio River. The court
looked to the definitions of "employer" and "employee" in Sec.
1915.4, which indicate the terms are limited to persons engaged in
shipyard employment "on the navigable waters of the United States,
including dry docks, graving docks and marine railways" (Sec.
1915.4(c) and (d)). (A dry dock is a narrow basin or vessel that can be
flooded to allow a vessel to be floated in and then drained so the
vessel comes to rest on a dry platform. A graving dock is a type of dry
dock.) The court said the plain meaning of the definitions did not
include fabrication shops ("they include only water, docks, and marine
railways" Id.), and declined to construe the definitions more broadly:
[A]n occupational safety and health standard must give an
employer fair warning of the conduct it prohibits or requires * * *
To strain the plain and natural meaning of words for the purpose of
alleviating a perceived safety hazard is to delay the day when the
occupational safety and health regulations will be written in clear
and concise language so that employers will be better able to
understand and observe them * * * The responsibility to promulgate
clear and unambiguous standards is upon the Secretary. The test is
not what he might possibly have intended, but what he said. Id.
The Dravo court concluded that if OSHA intends a different coverage
scheme, the Agency must amend part 1915 through rulemaking. Id.
Although OSHA disagrees with the Dravo decision, to avoid confusion
OSHA is expressly stating the applicability of proposed Sec. 1915.89.
Specifically, proposed Sec. 1915.89 will apply to the servicing of
ship's systems by any employee, including ship's officers and crew of
the vessel (Sec. 1915.89(a)(2)(i)(A)). (Similarly, in the proposal
OSHA also has clarified that subpart F applies "regardless of
geographic location," even though the language of Sec. 1915.4 limits
"employer" to persons engaged in shipyard employment "on the
navigable waters.")
The reasons for applying Sec. 1915.89 to ship's crew have been
discussed above and need not be repeated. OSHA believes that applying
Sec. 1915.89 to ship's crew should not come as a surprise to employers
since OSHA has consistently applied part 1915 whenever ship's crew engage
in shipyard employment (Ex. 16-9). Moreover, OSHA believes that the proposal
to apply consistent coverage to ship's crew should reduce any confusion
related to the split in the courts. OSHA requests comment on the proposed
provision.
Clarification of "maritime employment" exemption in Sec.
1910.147. OSHA proposes two technical revisions to the scope and
application section of Sec. 1910.147. The revisions clarify the
meaning of the maritime employment exemption and provide notification
of the proposed additions and policy changes discussed above. As
mentioned, the general industry lockout/tagout standard exempted
"maritime employment" (Sec. 1910.147(a)(1)(ii)(A)). Although the
standard did not define maritime employment, OSHA has traditionally
used the term as shorthand for the employment covered by parts 1915,
1917 and 1918. To eliminate possible confusion, OSHA proposes in Sec.
1910.147(a)(1)(ii)(B) to replace the shorthand term with reference to
the specific parts.
To clarify the exclusion from part 1915 of servicing of inherently
general industry equipment, OSHA proposes to add the following note to
Sec. 1910.147(a)(1)(ii)(B):
Section 1910.147 applies to the servicing of equipment onboard
vessels that is used for inherently general industry operations such
as fish processing. However, if such servicing is part of a general
overhaul and repair of the entire vessel, part 1915 applies.
The proposed revisions do not affect the substantive requirements
of Sec. 1910.147. OSHA requests comment.
Economic analysis. OSHA notes that its preliminary economic
analysis, a summary of which is included in this preamble, includes
compliance costs for shipyards and shipyard contractors to implement
proposed Sec. 1915.89. It does not include the costs of fish
processing employers to comply with proposed Sec. 1915.89. This is
because the economic analysis for the general industry lockout/tagout
rulemaking included the compliance costs for implementing the standard
in activities other than shipyard employment. It included compliance
costs for the fish processing industry, which includes fish processing
onboard vessels. OSHA invites comment on whether there are additional
costs for controlling hazardous energy on fish processing vessels that
the economic analysis for Sec. 1910.147 may not have included. If so,
please explain what those costs involve.
The requirements of the proposed Sec. 1915.89 standard. OSHA is
proposing to apply the general industry standard to shipyard employment
in the same manner as it applies to general industry, except for the
proposed changes described below. The preamble to the general industry
lockout/tagout standard includes a detailed explanation of each of the
standard's specific requirements, how they apply, and why they were
adopted (54 FR 36654-83). OSHA is incorporating that document and the
record of that rulemaking into this record. Therefore, OSHA will not
repeat that discussion and instead will provide a short overview of the
general industry requirements.
The general industry standard establishes minimum performance
requirements for the control of hazardous energy. The rule requires
that, before service or maintenance is performed, machinery and
equipment must be turned off and disconnected from the energy source,
the energy-isolating device must be either locked or tagged out, and
the deenergization must be verified.
Scope and application (Sec. 1910.147(a), proposed Sec.
1915.89(a)). The general industry Lockout/Tagout standard "covers the
servicing and maintenance of machines and equipment in which the
unexpected energization or start up of the machines or equipment, or
release of stored energy could cause injury to employees" (Sec.
1910.147(a)(1)(i)). In proposed Sec. 1915.89(a), OSHA is adopting this
scope and application with a few changes. The proposal does not include
the term "unexpected" that is used in describing the energization and
startup the general industry standard covers. The proposal also makes
more explicit that the standard also applies to "systems." (These
changes are discussed below in the section on the differences between
proposed Sec. 1915.89 and Sec. 1910.147.)
The standard defines "servicing and/or maintenance" (hereafter
collectively referred to as "servicing") as workplace activities such
as constructing, installing, setting up, adjusting, inspecting,
modifying, maintaining, and servicing machines, equipment and systems
(hereafter collectively referred to as "equipment")(Sec. 1910.147(b)
and proposed Sec. 1915.95). Servicing and maintenance activities are a
necessary part of the industrial process. They are needed to maintain
the ability of machines, equipment, systems and processes to perform
their intended functions. Additionally, installation, construction,
set-up, changeover, and dismantling are necessary and continuous
industrial processes. The standard covers these types of operations
because they also can expose employees to hazardous energy. The
standard does not apply in the following situations:
Servicing or maintaining cord and plug connected
electrical equipment, provided that the hazards are capable of being
controlled by unplugging the equipment from the energy source and the
plug being under the exclusive control of the employee performing the
service and/or maintenance;
Hot tap operations that involve transmission and
distribution systems for gas, steam, water, or petroleum products when
they are performed on pressurized pipelines, provided that continuity
of service is essential, shutdown of the system is impractical,
documented procedures are followed, and employees are provided with
alternative protection that is equally effective; and
Servicing or maintaining machines, equipment or systems
onboard vessels that are inherently general industry operations. This
would include operations such as fish processing (proposed Sec.
1915.89(a)(3)(iii)).
As discussed earlier, proposed Sec. 1915.89 will now also cover
all ship's systems and all employees.
Normal production operations (proposed Sec. 1915.89(a)(2)(ii)).
Although OSHA recognizes that machines and equipment present many
hazardous situations during normal production operations (i.e.,
whenever machines and equipment are used to perform their usual
production function), the scope of the standard is servicing and
maintenance operations. Hazards associated with normal production are
covered by rules in other general industry and shipyard standards, such
as the requirements for general machine guarding (Sec. 1910.212),
guarding power transmission apparatus (Sec. 1910.219), and guarding
tools and related equipment used in shipyard employment (Sec. Sec.
1915.131 and 1915.134).
OSHA recognizes that some servicing activities that occur during
normal production, such as making fine adjustments to equipment, must
be performed with the power on. This may include certain aspects of
troubleshooting, for example, checking to ensure that the source of a
production problem has been corrected. The standard exempts from
coverage these servicing activities during normal production, provided
that they are routine, repetitive and integral to the use of the
production equipment. However, the employer must provide employees with
alternative means of protection while performing these activities and
follow the standard's lockout/tagout procedures when servicing occurs
with the power off.
In certain circumstances, however, some hazards encountered during
normal production operations may be covered by the lockout/tagout rule.
Servicing and maintenance performed during or as part of normal
production operations (e.g., lubricating, cleaning or unjamming
machines and equipment) are covered by the lockout/tagout standard when
any of the following conditions occurs:
The employee must either remove or bypass machine guards
or other safety devices, resulting in exposure to hazards at the point
of operation;
The employee is required to place any part of his or her
body in contact with the point of operation of the operational machine
or piece of equipment; or
The employee is required to place any part of his or her
body into a danger zone associated with the operating cycle of the
equipment.
Energy control program (Sec. 1910.147(c), proposed Sec.
1915.89(b)). The lockout/tagout standard requires that the employer
establish an energy control program to ensure that equipment is
isolated and inoperative before any employee performs service or
maintenance where the energization, start up, or release of stored
energy could occur and cause injury. The program must include (1)
documented energy control procedures; (2) an employee training program;
and, (3) periodic inspections of the energy control procedures.
Employers have the flexibility to develop a program and procedures that
meet the needs of their particular workplace and the particular types
of equipment being maintained or serviced.
Although the energy control program applies to all employees, it is
directed primarily at those who have the greatest exposure to hazardous
energy--authorized and affected employees. The standard defines
"authorized employees" as those employees who apply lockout/tagout
devices and who perform servicing operations (Sec. 1910.147(b),
proposed Sec. 1915.95).
"Affected employees" include employees who operate, for normal
production, the machines or equipment on which service is being
performed as well as those employees whose job duties require them to
work in the area where the servicing is being performed. The definition
also specifies that an affected employee becomes an authorized employee
when he performs servicing operations on the equipment.
Written energy control procedures (Sec. 1910.147(c)(4), proposed
Sec. 1915.89(b)(4)). The standard requires that written energy control
procedures be developed, documented, and used to control potentially
hazardous energy sources whenever employees perform activities covered
by the standard. The written procedures must identify the information
that employees must know in order to control hazardous energy during
servicing.
The energy control procedures must outline the scope, purpose,
authorization, rules and techniques that will be used to control
hazardous energy sources, as well as the means that will be used to
enforce compliance. At a minimum, each procedure must include the
following elements:
A statement on how the procedure will be used;
The procedural steps needed to shut down, isolate, block,
and secure equipment;
The steps designating the placement, removal, and transfer
of lockout/tagout devices, and who has the responsibility for them; and
The specific requirements for testing equipment to
determine and verify the effectiveness of locks, tags, and other energy
control measures.
The standard requires that employers develop clear and specific
written energy control procedures that have the level of detail
necessary to ensure that employees know what steps and techniques they
must follow to be protected from hazardous energy. Although procedures
must be written in detail, the standard does not require separate
procedures be written for each and every piece of equipment (54 FR
36670). Thus, if the procedures and information are the same for
various equipment or if other logical groupings exist, then a single
set of procedures may be sufficient. However, if equipment is not the
same or other conditions are present that require specific
consideration, such as multiple energy sources or different means of
connection, then the employer must develop specific energy control
procedures to address them and ensure employees are protected. For
example, if a system requires that a unique shutdown sequence be
followed, specific energy control procedures will be required for that
system.
The standard includes an exception to the requirement to have
written control procedures for particular equipment. A written
procedure is not required for equipment if all of the following exist:
(1) The machine, equipment or system has no potential for stored or
residual energy or reaccumulation of stored energy after shut down that
could endanger employees; (2) the machine, equipment or system has a
single energy source which can be readily identified and isolated; (3)
the isolation and locking out of that energy source will completely
deenergize and deactivate the machine, equipment or system; (4) the
machine, equipment or system is isolated from that energy source and
locked out during servicing or maintenance; (5) a single lockout device
will achieve a locked-out condition; (6) the lockout device is under
the exclusive control of the authorized employee performing the
servicing or maintenance; (7) the servicing or maintenance does not
create hazards for other employees; and (8) the employer, in utilizing
this exception, has had no accidents involving the activation or
reenergization of the machine, equipment or system during servicing or
maintenance.
Energy-isolating devices (locks and tags) (Sec. 1910.147(c)(2) and
(3), proposed Sec. 1915.89(b)(2) and (3)). A primary tool for
providing protection under the standard is the energy-isolating device,
the mechanism that prevents the transmission or release of energy and
to which locks or tags are attached. This device guards against
equipment start-up or re-energization of equipment during servicing.
There are two types of energy-isolating devices: Those that are capable
of being locked and those that are not.
When the energy-isolating device cannot be locked, the standard
requires that the employer use a tagout system. A tagout system
consists of the required energy control procedures and extensive
initial and periodic reinforcement training, including training on the
limitation of tags (see training discussion below). However, where an
energy-isolating device is lockable, the standard requires that lockout
be used unless the employer can show that the use of a tagout system
provides "full employee protection" equivalent to that obtained by
using a lockout program (54 FR 36655).
"Full employee protection" means that the employer affixes the
tagout device at the same location that the lock would have been
attached and demonstrates that the tagout program provides equivalent
protection. To demonstrate that equivalent protection is provided, the
employer must demonstrate full compliance with all tagout-related
provisions, including the additional tagout training requirements, and
implement "additional elements as are necessary to provide equivalent
safety." This might include removing an isolating circuit element,
blocking a controlling switch, opening an extra disconnecting device,
or removing a valve handle to reduce the potential for any inadvertent
energization.
The standard requires that whenever major replacement, repair,
renovation or modification of equipment is performed, and whenever new
equipment is installed, the employer must ensure that energy-isolating
devices are designed to accept locks. In the preamble to the general
industry rule, OSHA explained that such modifications are most
effectively and efficiently made as part of the normal equipment
replacement or renovation cycle (54 FR 36656). (The proposed shipyard
rule makes clear that this requirement would only apply to machines,
equipment and systems the shipyard employer owns (proposed Sec.
1915.89(b)(2)(iii)).
Requirements for lockout/tagout devices (protective materials and
hardware) (Sec. 1910.147(c)(5), proposed Sec. 1915.89(b)(5)). When
attached to an energy-isolating device, both lockout and tagout devices
are tools that the employer can use to help protect employees from
hazardous energy. A "lockout device," as defined in the standard,
provides protection by holding the energy-isolating device in the safe
position, thus preventing the equipment from becoming energized (Sec.
1910.147(b), proposed Sec. 1915.95). The "tagout device" is a
prominent warning device that provides protection by identifying the
energy-isolating device as a source of potential danger. The tagout
device indicates that the energy-isolating device and the equipment
being controlled may not be operated until the tagout device is
removed. Whichever device is used, the standard requires that it must
be provided by the employer, be singularly identified, be the only
device used for controlling hazardous energy and not be used for other
purposes. Locks and tags must also meet the following requirements:
Durable--Lockout and tagout devices must be able to
withstand the environment to which they are exposed for the maximum
duration of the expected exposure. Tagout devices, including tags, must
be constructed and printed so that they do not deteriorate or become
illegible in wet or damp environments, or when used in environments
where corrosives (e.g., acid and alkali chemicals) are used or stored;
Standardized--Both lockout and tagout devices must be
standardized according to color, shape, or size so they are readily
recognized and associated with the control of hazardous energy. Tagout
devices must also be standardized according to print and format;
Substantial--Lockout and tagout devices must be
substantial enough to prevent inadvertent or accidental removal. Locks
must be substantial enough to prevent removal except by excessive force
or by special tools such as bolt cutters or other metal cutting tools.
The device for attaching the tag must be non-reusable, attachable by
hand, self-locking and non-releasable. It must also have a minimum
unlocking strength of no less than 50 pounds and have general design
and basic characteristics equivalent to a one-piece nylon cable tie
that will withstand all environments; and
Identifiable--Locks and tags must clearly identify the
employee who applies them. Tags must also warn against hazardous
conditions if the machine or equipment is energized and must include a
legend such as the following: DO NOT START; DO NOT OPEN; DO NOT CLOSE;
DO NOT ENERGIZE; DO NOT OPERATE.
Periodic inspections (Sec. 1910.147(c)(6), proposed Sec.
1915.89(b)(6)). The standard requires that the employer perform
periodic inspections at least annually to ensure that energy control
procedures are working properly. The inspection must be able to
determine four things: (1) Whether the steps in the energy control
procedures are being followed, (2) whether the employees involved know
their responsibilities under the procedures, (3) whether the procedures
are adequate to provide the necessary protection, and (4) what changes,
if any, are needed to correct identified deficiencies (54 FR 36673).
The inspection must be performed by an authorized employee, other than
the employee utilizing the energy control procedures being inspected.
The periodic inspection must contain two components: an inspection
of each energy control procedure and a review of each employee's
responsibilities under the energy control procedure being inspected.
Where a tagout system is used, the inspector's review of employee
responsibilities also extends to affected employees because of the
increased importance of their role in avoiding accidental or
inadvertent energization (54 FR 36673). In addition, when a tagout
system is used, the inspection must include a review with authorized
and affected employees about the limitations of tags.
The standard requires that each energy control procedure must be
separately inspected. However, that does not mean the employer must
inspect each piece of equipment under the same energy control procedure
or observe each employee the procedure covers. The employer may inspect
a representative sample of the equipment the procedure covers and
authorized employees who implement the procedure on that equipment.
Equipment that has the same type and magnitude of hazardous energy and
has the same or similar type of controls may be grouped together and
inspected by the type of procedure (Ex. 2-26, Letter to Thomas J.
Civic, 3/9/2004). Moreover, a grouping of detailed individual
procedures would be considered a single procedure for the purposes of
periodic inspection, provided all of the procedures have the same or
similar:
Intended equipment use;
Procedural steps for applying controls (i.e., shut down,
isolation, blocking, and securing equipment);
Procedural steps for placement, removal and transfer of
lockout/tagout devices and responsibility for them; and
Requirements for testing to verify the effectiveness of
lockout/tagout devices and other control measures (Ex. 2-25 Letter to
Lawrence P. Halprin, 9/19/1995).
In 1993, prior to the Agency interpretations, SESAC raised similar
concerns about the percentage of equipment that employers must inspect
in order to determine whether the energy control procedures are working
properly and employees understand their responsibilities under the
procedures (Docket SESAC 1993-3, Ex. 104X, pp. 164-169). OSHA believes
the interpretations incorporated and discussed above address SESAC's
concerns.
Employee training (Sec. 1910.147(c)(7), proposed Sec.
1915.89(b)(7)). The standard requires that the employer provide
effective initial training as well as retraining as necessary to ensure
that employees understand the purpose and function of the energy
control program and acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for the
safe application, use and removal of the energy controls. The details
of the training (e.g., amount and type of training) may vary depending
on factors such as the employee's job duties under the energy control
program and the complexity of the equipment or lockout/tagout
procedures (54 FR 36673). The relative degree of knowledge that
authorized, affected and other employees must acquire also varies, with
authorized employees demanding the most extensive training because of
their responsibility for implementing energy control procedures (i.e.,
applying lockout and tagout devices) and performing servicing
operations. For example, the training for authorized employees must
cover at least:
Recognition of applicable hazardous energy sources;
The type and magnitude of the energy available in the
workplace; and
The means and methods necessary for energy isolation and
control.
Affected employees, because they operate or use the equipment that
authorized employees are servicing, must be trained in the purpose and
use of the energy control procedures. Finally, other employees who may
work or be in an area where energy control procedures are in use need
to be instructed about the procedure in use and, most importantly,
about the prohibition against attempting to start or energize machines
or equipment that are locked out or tagged out.
As mentioned, when a tagout system is used the standard requires
that employers also train employees in the limitations of tags,
including at least:
Tags are essentially warning devices affixed to energy
isolating devices and do not provide the physical restraint of a lock;
When a tag is attached to an energy isolating device, it
is not to be removed without authorization of the authorized person
responsible for it, and it is never to be bypassed, ignored or
otherwise defeated;
To be effective, tags must be legible and understandable
by all authorized employees, affected employees and all other employees
whose work operations are or may be in the area;
Tags and their means of attachment must be made of
materials that will withstand the environmental conditions encountered
in the workplace;
Tags may evoke a false sense of security. They are only
one part of an overall energy control program; and
Tags must be securely attached to an energy isolating
device so they cannot be inadvertently or accidentally detached during
use.
The standard also requires the employer to provide retraining to
authorized and affected employees when the energy control procedures
are changed, when a change in job assignment occurs or when a change in
equipment presents a new hazard. Additional retraining must also be
provided when an inspection reveals or the employer has reason to
believe that there are deviations from or inadequacies in the
employee's knowledge or use of the energy control procedures. Finally,
the retraining must reestablish employee proficiency and describe any
new or revised control methods and procedures, if needed. The standard
requires that employers certify that training and retraining has been
provided and is current.
Application of controls (Sec. 1910.147(d), proposed Sec.
1915.89(c)). The standard establishes procedures that authorized
employees must follow for applying energy controls. The energy control
procedures must include the following elements implemented in this
sequence:
(1) Prepare for shutdown, ensuring authorized employee has
knowledge in the type and magnitude of the energy, the hazards to be
controlled and the methods to control energy;
(2) Shut down the equipment using the procedures established for
that equipment;
(3) Isolate the equipment from the energy sources;
(4) Apply lockout or tagout devices to energy isolating device in a
manner that holds the energy isolating devices in a safe or off
(lockout) position or indicates that operation or movement of the
energy isolating device is prohibited (tagout). Where a tag cannot be
affixed directly to the energy isolating device, the standard requires
that it must be placed as close as safely possible to the device, and
in a position that will be immediately obvious to anyone attempting to
operate the device or equipment;
(5) Relieve or render safe all stored or residual energy. If there
is a possibility of stored or residual energy reaccumulating, the
verification of isolation must be continued until the servicing is
completed or the risk no longer exists; and
(6) Verify isolation and deenergization of equipment before
beginning servicing.
The standard requires that applying energy controls be performed
only by the authorized employee performing the servicing and only after
affected employees are notified that energy controls are being applied
(or being removed) (Sec. 1910.147(c)(8) and (9), proposed Sec.
1915.89(b)(8) and (9)).
Release from lockout or tagout (Sec. 1910.147(e), proposed Sec.
1915(d)). The standard also establishes procedures that authorized
employees must follow when releasing lockout and tagout applications.
Before lockout or tagout devices are removed (i.e., the equipment is
being released from the lockout or tagout status) and energy is
restored to the equipment, the authorized employee must take the
following actions in this sequence:
(1) Inspect the work area to ensure that non-essential items have
been removed and that equipment components are intact and capable of
operating properly;
(2) Check the work area to ensure that all employees have been
safely positioned or removed;
(3) Notify affected employees after removing locks or tags and
before starting equipment; and
(4) Make sure that locks and tags are removed only by the
authorized employees who attached them. In the very few instances when
this is not possible, the device may be removed by another employee who
is also an authorized employee and is working at the direction of the
employer, provided that the employer has:
Implemented specific procedures and training that address
the situation; and
Demonstrated that the procedures provide equivalent
safety.
Furthermore, the procedure must include the following:
A verification that the employee who applied the lockout/
tagout device is not at the facility;
Reasonable efforts have been made to contact the
authorized employee to inform him or her that the device has been
removed; and
Assurance that the absent authorized employee knows about
the removal before he or she returns and resumes work.
Additional safety requirements (Sec. 1910.147(f), proposed Sec.
1915.89(e)). The standard includes additional requirements when certain
circumstances may pose an increased risk of harm. These circumstances
are: (1) Testing or positioning equipment during servicing; (2) the
presence of outside (contractor) personnel at the worksite who are
engaged in servicing operations; (3) servicing or maintenance performed
by a group (rather than one specific person); and (4) changes in
workshifts or personnel.
Testing or positioning of machines, equipment, systems or their
components (Sec. 1910.147(f)(1), proposed Sec. 1915(e)(1)). The
standard allows the temporary removal of locks or tags and the re-
energization of equipment during the limited time when power is needed
for the testing or positioning of them or their components. The
reenergization must be conducted in accordance with the sequence of
steps listed below to ensure employees' safety when they take equipment
from a deenergized to energized condition and back again:
(1) Clear the equipment of tools and materials;
(2) Remove employees from the equipment area;
(3) Remove the lockout or tagout devices in accordance with the
required removal procedures;
(4) Energize the equipment and proceed with testing or positioning;
(5) When testing or positioning is complete, deenergize all systems
and isolate the equipment from the energy source; and
(6) Reapply lockout or tagout devices in accordance with the
required control application procedures.
Outside personnel (contractors, ship's crew, etc.) (Sec.
1910.147(f)(2), proposed Sec. 1915(e)(2)). When outside personnel
perform servicing operations at the worksite, the standard requires
that the onsite employer and the outside employer must inform each
other of their respective lockout or tagout procedures. The onsite
employer must ensure that his or her personnel understand and comply
with all restrictions and/or prohibitions of the outside employer's
energy control program. The proposed rule makes it clear that outside
personnel include ship's crew and contractors hired by the ship owner.
The following accident highlights the need for employers to
coordinate their lockout/tagout program. In 1987, a fatality occurred
aboard a grain-carrying ship that was equipped with wing tanks on each
side of the ship. A screw conveyor ran through each wing tank. At the
time of the accident, two of the wing tanks were being washed.
Simultaneously, a Marine Chemist and a shipyard employee were inside
another wing tank that was not being washed. The shipyard employee was
standing on the conveyor when it was turned on by a member of the
ship's crew who was unaware the employee and the chemist were inside
the other wing tank. The screw conveyor crushed the shipyard employee
to death. Although a lockout procedure was in effect for the employees
washing the tanks, this information was not provided to the other
employees, nor was there any coordination between employers or tasks.
Group lockout or tagout (Sec. 1910.147(f)(3), proposed Sec.
1915(e)(3)). The standard requires that when servicing is performed by
a crew or other group, the employer must utilize procedures that afford
employees a level of protection equivalent to the use of a personal
lockout or tagout device. The group lockout/tagout procedures must be
in accord with the employer's energy control procedures, including at
least the following specific requirements:
Each group working under a group lockout/tagout must have
an authorized employee who is vested with primary responsibility for
the group;
The authorized employee must ascertain the exposure status
of each member of the group;
Each authorized employee must affix a personal lockout or
tagout device when he or she begins work and remove it when work is
completed; and
If more than one crew or group is involved in servicing,
an authorized employee must be designated to coordinate the affected
groups and ensure continuity of protection.
Shift or personnel changes (Sec. 1910.147(f)(4), proposed Sec.
1915(e)(4)). The standard requires that the employer's energy control
program include specific procedures to ensure the continuity of lockout
or tagout protection during the workshift or personnel changes.
Appendix A (Non-mandatory). The standard also includes a non-
mandatory appendix as a guideline to help employers and employees
comply with the requirements of the standard. The appendix also
provides other helpful information on the control of hazardous energy.
The differences between proposed Sec. 1915.89 and Sec. 1910.147.
As mentioned, in most respects, OSHA is proposing to apply the general
industry lockout/tagout standard to shipyards in the same manner as it
applies to general industry. However, in certain places OSHA is
proposing to modify the language of the standard to make the rule more
directly applicable to shipyard employment. Most of the proposed
modifications are strictly technical, for example, changes in the
effective date and references to applicable standards in Part 1915. A
few proposed changes address specific working conditions and
circumstances in shipyards.
"Unexpected." The proposal does not include the term
"unexpected," which the general industry Lockout/Tagout standard uses
in describing equipment energization and startup that the standard
covers (Sec. 1910.147(a)(1)(i)). OSHA interpreted "unexpected
energization or startup" to mean energization or startup of equipment
that is unintended or unplanned. OSHA believes that energization or
startup that occurs while the employee is servicing the equipment and
before the employee intends to activate it is unintended and unplanned.
This includes any steps toward reenergization that are taken without
the servicing employee's knowledge. Such startup is clearly outside the
energy control plan and procedures, and could result in injury if the
energy involved is strong enough. Thus, determining whether employees
could be injured if the equipment is energized or starts up during the
servicing operation is a key inquiry for employers. Thus, OSHA believes
preventing energization or startup during servicing that could cause
injury is necessary to fully effectuate the standard's purpose and the
provisions designed to protect employees from injury during servicing
operations.
In Reich v. General Motors Corp., the Commission and Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit did not accept OSHA's interpretation of
"unexpected" energization or startup in the general industry Lockout/
Tagout standard. Reich v. General Motors Corp., 17 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA)
1673 (1995); 89 F.3d 313 (6th Cir. 1996). Although the Agency disagrees
with their decisions in that case, to avoid any confusion OSHA is not
using the term "unexpected" in this proposal. OSHA believes this
change further clarifies the Agency's intent that the proposal covers
all servicing activities in which the equipment being serviced could
energize, start up or release energy while the employee is servicing
it, and such action could cause injury.
Systems. OSHA proposes to add the word "systems" to the
"machines and equipment" the general industry standard covers. The
hazards on vessels often involve working on ship's systems that create
and distribute power--not only the machines or equipment that are
driven by it. There are several reasons for explicitly identifying
systems in the application of the shipyard standard. First, the
language of shipbuilding and repair revolves around systems. The
functional components of a ship are commonly known as ship's systems,
such as electrical, propulsion, guidance, fuel, or radar systems.
Adding systems to the standard makes it more directly applicable to
shipyard employment, and makes it clear that the standard applies to
systems as a whole, not merely the individual components of such
systems.
Second, including systems also makes it clear that pipes,
electrical cables, and like components are included in the equipment
and processes to which lockout/tagout must be applied, and that a
holistic approach may be needed to ensure employees are protected. In
some cases, pipes, power cables, and control systems need to be
considered when working on a specific piece of equipment, and adding
the systems term helps to ensure that holistic approach is followed.
Scope--exemptions. The shipyard lockout/tagout proposal (Sec.
1915.89(a)(1)) does not carry over the exemptions from coverage
contained in the scope section of the general industry standard (Sec.
1910.147(a)(1)(ii)). The reasons are obvious. The exemptions include
the maritime industry or address hazards and activities that are not
present in shipyard employment (e.g., agriculture, oil and gas well
drilling and servicing). The proposal (Sec. 1915.80 and .89) makes
clear that the entirety of subpart F applies to shipyard employment,
including landside operations and work on board vessels and vessel sections.
The proposal also does not include the exemption that SESAC
recommended:
Note: This standard does not apply on vessel sections,
equipment, and machines which are under the control of a Federal
government agency (e.g., the U.S. Navy), and where the agency
exercises control over hazardous energy sources by its lockout or
tagout procedures. Those procedures shall supersede these
regulations (Docket SESAC 1993-3, Ex. 104X, p. 48).
It is unclear to whom SESAC intends that the proposed exemption
would apply--the ship, Federal civilian employees, military personnel,
shipyard owners or Federal contract employers and employees. At the
outset, OSHA notes that its standards apply to employers and not
vessels. Assuming, however, that SESAC intends the exemption to apply
to shipyard owners and Federal contractors who perform servicing
onboard government vessels, such an exemption is inconsistent with the
OSH Act and case law interpreting it. The OSH Act does not exclude
Federal contractors from coverage (29 U.S.C. 653(b)(2)). The case law
is well-settled that employees of private contractors performing work
under Federal contracts are covered under the OSH Act. Ensign-Bickford
Co. v. OSHRC, 717 F.2d 1419, 1421, cert. denied, 466 U.S. 937 (1984).
In addition, the provisions in 29 CFR part 1960 (Elements for Federal
Employee Occupational Safety and Health Programs) stress that the OSH
Act covers Federal contractors and their employees. In particular,
Sec. 1960.1(f) provides that Federal contract employees are assured
protection under the OSH Act and no provision of part 1960 "shall be
construed in any manner to relieve any private employer, including
Federal contractors, or their employees of any rights or
responsibilities under the provisions of the Act."
OSHA is preempted from covering Federal contractors and their
employees only where another Federal agency has statutory authority to
prescribe and enforce occupational safety and health standards on the
contract employers and exercises that authority. Ensign-Bickford, 717
F.2d at 1421. A contractual obligation to comply with a Federal
agency's safety procedures or manual does not constitute an exercise of
statutory authority sufficient to justify preemption under section
4(b)(1) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 653). Id. Preemption is appropriate
only where a Federal agency implements and enforces the regulatory
apparatus necessary to replace those safeguards the OSH Act requires.
Id.
With regard to Federal civilian employees, the SESAC's proposed
exemption also is inconsistent with the OSH Act, Executive Order (E.O.)
12196 and 28 CFR 1960. Those provisions, which require that each
Federal agency provide safe and healthful places and conditions of
employment for Federal employees, are meant to ensure that Federal
civilian employees have the same protections as private sector
employees have under the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 668(a)(1); E.O. 12196 Sec.
1-201 (1980); 29 CFR 1960.1(a)). To effectuate this, section 1-201(d)
of Executive Order 12196 and 29 CFR 1960.16 require Federal agencies to
comply with all standards issued under section 6 the OSH Act. There is
no evidence in the record that the hazardous energy to which Federal
civilian employees may be exposed during onboard servicing operations
is any different from those that private sector employees face onboard
vessels. Therefore, OSHA believes excluding Federal employees is not
appropriate.
With regard to military personnel, OSHA notes that E.O. 12196
excludes from coverage "military personnel and uniquely military
equipment, systems, and operations" (E.O. 12196 Sec. 1-101).
Accordingly, the exemption SESAC recommends is not necessary to exclude
military personnel from the proposed lockout/tagout standard.
Scope--application and purpose. The general industry standard
specifies that it does not apply to "normal production operations,"
except in certain limited situations (Sec. 1910.147(a)(2)(ii)). The
standard and its preamble explain that equipment hazards during those
operations are covered by subpart O of Part 1910. The requirements of
subpart O generally apply to shipyard employment. However, certain
provisions are not applicable to shipyard employment because the
specific requirements in subpart H of part 1915 apply (e.g., Sec. Sec.
1915.131 and .134). Accordingly, OSHA is proposing to revise the
regulatory language to indicate that standards addressing normal
production operations in shipyard employment are found in the
applicable requirements contained in "subpart O of 29 CFR part 1910
and subpart H of 29 CFR part 1915."
Similarly, Sec. 1910.147(a)(3)(ii) requires employers to use the
general industry standard to supplement lockout/tagout provisions in
other standards in part 1910. The proposed rule modifies this language
to include part 1915 as well as part 1910. As mentioned, the part 1915
standards that contain lockout/tagout requirements include Sec.
1915.162 Ship's Boilers, Sec. 1915.163 Ship's Piping Systems, Sec.
1915.164 Ship's Propulsion Machinery, andSec. 1915.181 Electrical
circuits and distribution boards. Part 1910 standards that currently
contain lockout/tagout related requirements that may apply, with some
exceptions, to shipyards include: Sec. 1910.178 Power Industrial
Trucks; Sec. 1910.179 Overhead and Gantry Cranes; Sec. 1910.181
Derricks; Sec. 1910.213 Woodworking Machinery; Sec. 1910.217
Mechanical Power Presses; Sec. 1910.218 Forging Machines; Sec.
1910.252 Welding, Cutting and Brazing; and Sec. 1910.305 Electrical.
Definitions. The proposed standard uses the same definitions as
paragraph (b) of Sec. 1910.147. The proposed definitions contain some
technical changes, primarily to make the definitions more directly
applicable to shipyard employment. In addition, the lockout/tagout
definitions have been moved to the definitions section for subpart F,
(proposed Sec. 1915.95). As a result, the paragraph numbers in the
proposed Sec. 1915.89 do not correspond with the numbers in the
general industry standard.
Installing lockable energy-isolating devices during replacement and
overhaul. Paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of the general industry standard
requires employers to install lockable energy-isolating devices when
replacing or overhauling machines or equipment. In the preamble to the
final standard, OSHA said that it was "much more effective and
protective" to design a locking capability into equipment during
normal replacement and overhaul cycles (54 FR 36656). The proposed
lockout/tagout standard for shipyards also contains this requirement
(proposed Sec. 1915.89(b)(2)(iii)). However, the general industry
provision assumes that the employer owns, and therefore, has the
ability to make changes to equipment. This frequently is not the case
in shipyard employment, particularly with regard to ship's systems. As
mentioned, shipyard employers ordinarily do not own the ships that they
service. Accordingly, the Agency proposes to include the following
exception to Sec. 1915.89(b)(2)(iii): "This requirement does not
apply to a machine, equipment or system that the employer does not
own."
However, OSHA believes that shipyard employees, ship's crews, and
contractor employees would be safer if vessel owners installed lockout
systems, and some owners already are implementing this safety measure.
For example, the Military Sealift Command (MSC) operates over 100
civilian-crewed ships providing ocean transportation of equipment,
fuel, supplies, and ammunition to sustain U.S. military forces
worldwide (Ex. 9). The MSC lockout/tagout program requires both a tag
and a locking device with a padlock to secure an energy source whenever
possible, which protects shipyard employees as well as ship's crews
during lockout/tagout applications (Ex. 9). OSHA asks for comment on
how the Agency or shipyards can encourage ship owners to install
lockable systems during the design and overhaul process. Finally, the
Agency is also proposing to change paragraph (b)(2)(iii) to reference
the effective date of the revised 1915 subpart F.
Outside personnel (contractors, ship's crew, etc.) proposed Sec.
1915.89(e)(2)). OSHA is requesting comment on what language to adopt in
the final rule that best and most clearly explains the requirement to
coordinate the activities of the various employers that might be
involved in servicing operations at shipyards. The proposed language,
which is consistent with the language of Sec. 1910.147(f)(2) reads as
follows:
(2) Outside personnel (contractors, ship's crew, etc.). (i)
Whenever outside servicing personnel such as contractors or ship's
crew are to be engaged in activities covered by the scope and
application of this standard, the on-site employer and the outside
employer shall inform each other of their respective lockout or
tagout procedures.
(ii) The on-site employer shall ensure that his/her employees
understand and comply with the restrictions and prohibitions of the
outside employer's energy control program.
Several shipyard employment standards require employers to
coordinate safety and health activities. For example, the part 1915
Subpart P Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment standards require
contract employers in shipyard employment to have a fire safety plan
that complies with the host employers fire safety plan (Sec.
1915.502(e)). In OSHA's experience, such coordination is commonly
achieved by the contract employers adopting the safety and health
policies and procedures of the shipyard. For example, as explained in
the preamble to the fire protection rulemaking, OSHA finds it
acceptable for a contractor to adopt the host employer's fire safety
plan if that plan includes the fire hazards the contract employees will
encounter (69 FR 55674, (9/15/2004)).
OSHA is concerned that the language of paragraph (ii) requiring the
on-site employer to ensure that his/her employees understand and comply
with the restrictions and prohibitions of the outside employer's energy
control program may appear to run counter to the common practice of
contractors following the host employer's programs. OSHA does not
believe that this is actually the case, because contract employers who
adopt the host employer's energy control procedures would implement the
required coordination and both employers would be in compliance.
However, to avoid potential confusion on this matter, OSHA is
considering alternative language used in a similar requirement found in
Sec. 1910.269(d)(8)(iv) of the general industry electric power
generation, transmission and distribution standard, which reads as
follows:
Whenever outside servicing personnel are to be engaged in
activities covered by paragraph (d) of this section, the on-site
employer and the outside employer shall inform each other of their
respective lockout or tagout procedures, and each employer shall
ensure that his or her personnel understand and comply with
restrictions and prohibitions of the energy control procedures being
used.
OSHA requests comment on the best language to use for this
provision. Is the alternative language easier to understand? Does it
improve or alter employee protections? Does it provide more flexibility
by allowing the employers to decide among themselves which procedures
are more appropriate? Should the final standard require the employer to
adopt the most protective procedures, regardless of which employer has
them?
Issues for which OSHA is seeking comment on the lockout/tagout
proposal. Although OSHA is proposing to adopt the Sec. 1910.147
provisions with minor revision, the Agency is also considering whether
to add additional measures to further tailor the standard to the
shipyard industry and to provide additional protection for shipyard
employees. Therefore, OSHA asks for comment on the following issues.
Current shipyard lockout/tagout programs. OSHA asks for information
on current hazardous energy control programs used by shipyard employers
and how they differ from OSHA's general industry approach. Please
describe your lockout/tagout program and submit copies of your programs
to the record. OSHA is also interested in learning about the
effectiveness, costs, and cost savings associated with different
hazardous energy approaches. Please submit any information on program
effectiveness, injury reduction, costs, cost savings, and other
benefits associated with your lockout/tagout efforts.
Compatibility of general industry approach for shipyard employment.
At the beginning of the discussion of the proposed lockout/tagout
standard, OSHA outlined the reasons why the Agency proposes to adopt
the general industry lockout/tagout approach for shipyard employment.
OSHA requests comment on the proposed approach. Specifically, OSHA
requests comment on whether the proposed approach, as is, would
adequately protect employees against hazardous energy in shipyard
employment. Please explain what additional modifications to the
standard, if any, may be needed to protect shipyard employees from
hazardous energy. OSHA is aware that a number of shipyard employers
have implemented lockout/tagout programs that are based on the general
industry standard. Please describe your lockout/tagout program and
submit a copy of it for the record. Why did your establishment
implement the general industry approach? What type of revisions, if
any, did you make to the general industry energy control program so it
would be compatible and effective in your workplace?
Some members of SESAC urged that OSHA, instead of proposing to
apply the general industry lockout/tagout standard to shipyards, to
develop a different plain language lockout/tagout standard tailored
specifically to shipyard employment. OSHA requests comment on whether a
different standard, not based on the general industry standard, is
necessary to control hazardous energy in shipyard employment. If not,
why not? If so, what should such a standard contain? What types of
problems and costs, if any, would adopting a separate shipyard lockout/
tagout standard pose for shipyard employers who already have
implemented a lockout/tagout program based on the general industry
standard?
Incident investigation. SESAC recommended that a shipyard lockout/
tagout standard include a provision requiring the employer to conduct
incident investigations when accidents or near misses occur (Docket
SESAC 1993-3, Ex. 8, p. 7). They recommended that incident
investigations be conducted to identify deficiencies in the lockout/
tagout program and then to correct any problems or deficiencies in the
program. OSHA requests input on whether the standard should include an
incident investigation requirement. Does your shipyard or industry
routinely conduct such investigations? If not, why not? If so, has the
approach been successful in identifying and resolving lockout/tagout
problems? If OSHA adopts an incident investigation provision, what
requirements should it include (e.g., the qualifications of staff
performing the investigation; the promptness of the investigation; the
quality of the investigation, documentation, and corrective action)?
Additional measures. As discussed, the general industry standard
only allows an employer to use a tagout device on a lockable energy
isolating device when the employer can demonstrate that the tagout
system will provide "full employee protection," that is, when the
employer demonstrates that the tagout program provides a level of
safety equivalent to that obtained by using a lock. To demonstrate that
the required level of protection is achieved the employer must
demonstrate full compliance with all tagout provisions and implement
additional safety measures as necessary. Some of the additional
measures the standard identifies are removal of isolating circuit
elements or valve handles and blocking control switches.
The general industry standard and this proposed rule do not apply
the requirement of full employee protection and additional measures to
energy isolating devices that are not capable of being locked. OSHA
decided against extending the requirement to non-lockable energy
isolating devices in the general industry rule because the Agency
determined that such devices could not provide protection equivalent to
that obtained by using a lock. In addition, OSHA observed that, in
general industry, the number of non-lockable energy isolating devices
was small, less than 10 percent of all equipment. Moreover, OSHA
predicted that their number would rapidly decline and eventually
disappear when the requirement to make energy isolating devices
lockable during replacement or major repair was implemented.
Although the situation for shipyard landside operations is similar
to that of general industry, the situation onboard vessels is almost
the opposite. OSHA estimates that more than 90 percent of equipment and
systems onboard vessels are not capable of being locked (see
Preliminary Economic Analysis below). Some cannot be locked because the
system is too complex or because locking the system would result in
shutting down all operations throughout the vessel. In addition, a
number of vessel systems are not designed or built to allow locks and
shipyard employers cannot attach or retrofit them because they do not
own the vessel. In recognition of this, OSHA is proposing to exempt
shipyard employers from the requirement to make systems on vessels
lockable during replacement and repair if the employer does not own the
vessel. Therefore, for machines, equipment and systems onboard vessels,
it is unlikely that the number of non-lockable systems will decrease
significantly without action by ship owners. At the same time, OSHA is
aware that many shipyard employers use additional measures whenever a
tagout system is used, regardless of whether the energy isolating
device is capable of being locked (Docket SESAC 1993-3, Ex. 104X, p.
73). OSHA requests comment on whether the standard should require
shipyard employers to implement additional safety measures whenever a
tagout system is used, regardless of whether the energy isolating
device is capable of being locked. Does your establishment currently
use additional safety measures whenever a tagout system is utilized? If
not, why not? If so, what measures do you use and why?
A related issue is what additional measures employers may use when
tagout systems are utilized. In addition to using the measures
identified in the general industry standard, some shipyard employers
use administrative means, such as posting authorized employees as
attendants at the energy isolating device or power source to help
ensure that no one removes the tagout device or starts up the equipment
while servicing is still in progress. OSHA requests comment on whether
the Agency should include posting of an attendant as an example of the
additional measures employers may use. What additional measures does
your shipyard and industry use to provide added protection when tagout
systems are used? Please explain how these measures work and why they
are used.
Group lockout/tagout. The general industry standard (Sec.
1910.147(f)(3)(iii)(D)) and the proposed standard require that the
employer ensure that each authorized employee affix a personal lockout
or tagout device to the group mechanism before beginning work and
remove the device when work ends. This provision, along with others in
the standard, ensures that each employee has a degree of control over
his or her protection. SESAC recommended that a shipyard lockout/tagout
standard include a provision allowing shipyard employers to use
administrative or other means to control access to locked or tagged
machines or equipment when a group of employees are servicing the same
equipment (Docket SESAC 1993-3, Ex. 104X, pp. 134-158). OSHA requests
comment on other "equivalent methods" for group lockout/tagout that
the Agency should consider. What methods does your shipyard or industry
use to control access in group lockout/tagout situations? Do they
result in any other advantages or disadvantages?
It is OSHA's view that the group lockout/tagout provisions apply
whether the employees in the group work for only one employer, or if
they work for multiple employers. In your establishment or industry,
are group lockout/tagout procedures used for multi-employer groups? If
so, what safety measures do you use to assure that consistent
procedures are used by the employers and employees involved?
Non-mandatory appendix. OSHA proposes to adopt the non-mandatory
appendix from the general industry standard. The appendix, which
provides an example of a typical minimum lockout procedure, will help
shipyard employers comply with the standard. OSHA requests comment on
whether the appendix should be revised to further tailor it to shipyard
employers.
Section 1915.90 Safety Color Code for Marking Physical Hazards
OSHA proposes to incorporate by reference the general industry
standard on safety color coding for marking physical hazards (Sec.
1910.144). The standard already is applicable to shipyard employment,
both on vessels and on shore. The existing standard requires that the
color red shall be the basic color for the identification of dangerous
conditions such as containers of flammable liquids, lights at
barricades and temporary obstructions and danger signs. The standard
also specifies that red shall be the color for emergency stop buttons,
electric switches, and machine stop bars. In addition, the standard
requires that yellow shall be the basic color for designating caution
and marking physical hazards such as slip, trip and fall hazards.
Section 1915.91 Accident Prevention Signs and Tags
OSHA is proposing to incorporate by reference the general industry
Accident Prevention Signs and Tags standard (1910.145). The standard's
requirements on the classification, design and wording of accident
prevention signs apply to shipyard employment (on vessels and on
shore)(Sec. 1910.145(a) through (e)); however, the standard's
requirements on accident prevention tags do not (Sec.
1910.145(f)(ii)). Part 1915 does not have comprehensive, uniform
requirements on the design, application and use of such tags. Part
1915 contains only limited requirements for accident signs and labels,
such as provisions on the posting of warning signs and labels to comply
with the shipyard confined and enclosed spaces standard (Sec. 1915.16).
The general industry provisions on accident prevention tags require
that they be used where employees are exposed to potentially hazardous
conditions, equipment or operations that are "out of the ordinary,
unexpected or not readily apparent" (Sec. 1910.145(f)(3)). The
provisions also require that tags meet uniform criteria for message,
legibility, positioning/affixing, and comprehensibility (Sec.
1910.145(f)(4)).
Incorporating the general industry standard is necessary to provide
consistent protection wherever shipyard employees are exposed to
potentially hazardous conditions. It also ensures that important
warning and danger signs and tags are uniform in their design and use,
which OSHA believes will increase their effectiveness. The proposed
requirements should not pose problems for shipyard employers since the
general industry requirements are universally recognized and the use of
signs and tags as specified in Sec. 1910.145 are already common
shipyard practice.
To eliminate any possible confusion, the proposal also amends Sec.
1910.145 to remove from the scope provisions the exclusions for
"marine regulations" and "maritime" (Sec. 1910.145(a)(1) and
(f)(1)(ii)). As discussed in the proposed lockout/tagout section, a
potential for confusion may exist because the terms "maritime" and
"marine" have sometimes been used as shorthand for shipyard
employment, marine terminals and longshoring. Removing those terms
eliminates that potential ambiguity. (OSHA notes that removing the
terms does not change the scope and application of Sec. 1910.145 vis a
vis marine terminals and longshoring; that is, removing the language
excluding maritime and marine regulations does not now make the
standard applicable to marine terminals and longshoring. General
industry standards apply to marine terminals and longshoring only to
the extent they are specifically incorporated by reference in parts
1917 and 1918. Section 1910.145 is not incorporated into either part;
therefore, it does not apply.)
OSHA requests comment on the proposed requirements. Should OSHA
propose that accident prevention signs be understandable to employees
(existing paragraph 1910.145(f)(4)(iv)) and that employees be provided
with information as to their meaning (existing paragraph
1910.145(f)(5)(v)) as already required for accident prevention tags?
(Section 1915.16 contains similar requirements, but they are for
warning signs and labels for confined and enclosed spaces.) If not, why
not? If so, what should those requirements include?
Section 1915.92 Retention of DOT Markings, Placards, and Labels
OSHA proposes to retain, with minor editorial changes, the existing
requirements (Sec. 1915.100) on the retention of DOT markings,
placards and labels on hazardous materials the shipyard receives.
Proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) require that employers not remove
labels and markings on any hazardous materials or freight containers,
rail freight cars, motor vehicles, or transportation vehicles that the
U.S. Department of Transportation regulations require to be marked
until the hazardous materials are removed, and that any residue is
cleaned and any vapors are purged to prevent potential hazards. This
would apply regardless of how the shipyard receives the hazardous
material packages (e.g., single packages, in bulk).
Proposed paragraph (c) requires that the markings, placards and
labels on the hazardous materials be maintained so that they are
"readily visible." Proposed paragraph (d) states that employers are
considered in compliance with this section if the markings/labels on
non-bulk packages that will not be reshipped are affixed in accordance
with the Hazard Communication standard Sec. 1915.1200. Finally,
proposed paragraph (e) specifies that the definition of "hazardous
materials" and other undefined terms have the same definition as the
U.S. Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (49
CFR parts 171 through 180). OSHA requests comment on whether paragraph
(e), which cross-references the DOT hazardous materials regulations (as
does the general industry standard), is necessary for employers to
understand the standard or whether it should be deleted in the final
rule.
Section 1915.93 Motor Vehicle Safety Equipment, Operation, and
Maintenance
OSHA proposes to add a new section addressing the hazards
associated with the use of motor vehicles at shipyards. The proposed
section sets forth requirements addressing motor vehicle safety
equipment and the safe operation and maintenance of motor vehicles.
According to the BLS CFOI database, over an 11-year period (1993-2003),
27 shipyard employees were killed in transportation accidents,
accounting for 17 percent of the deaths during that time. OSHA believes
that the proposed motor vehicle safety provisions will help reduce the
incidence of motor vehicle related fatalities.
In Sec. 1915.95, OSHA is proposing to define "motor vehicle" to
mean any motor-driven vehicle operated by an employee that is used to
transport employees, materials, or property. Motor vehicles would
include passenger cars, light trucks (e.g., pickup trucks), vans, all-
terrain vehicles, powered industrial trucks, and other similar
vehicles.
OSHA believes the proposed requirements are necessary because
vehicle accidents continue to result in employee deaths in shipyard
employment. As discussed above, a high proportion of shipyard employee
fatalities are caused by motor vehicle-related accidents. Motor vehicle
accidents are also a significant cause of employee injury in shipyards.
According to BLS, since 1998 an estimated 225 shipyard employees have
suffered motor vehicle-related injuries serious enough to involve days
away from work. In 2002, 63 shipyard employees suffered injuries
involving days away from work in transportation accidents.
Paragraph (a)--Application. In paragraph (a)(1), OSHA proposes to
apply this section to any motor vehicle used to transport employees,
materials or property at shipyards. The provision also makes clear that
the section would not apply to motor vehicle operation on public
streets and highways. OSHA believes that Federal, State and local laws
and regulations such as safety belt and vehicle inspection laws,
already provide adequate protection on public roads. Thus, the proposal
is directed to where those laws and regulations may not apply to motor
vehicles used on shipyard property (e.g., transporting employees
between worksites, moving materials). Nonetheless, OSHA believes the
proposal's benefits will extend beyond motor vehicle operation at
shipyard worksites. For example, an employee who is required to wear a
safety belt while riding in a motor vehicle on shipyard property is
more likely to continue to wear it when the vehicle leaves the
shipyard. Likewise, a motor vehicle that is maintained in safe
operating condition for use in shipyard employment will also be safe
when it is used on public roads.
In paragraph (a)(2), OSHA proposes to limit application of most of
the provisions of the section to motor vehicles the employer provides.
However, because some employers allow employees to use their own motor
vehicles to transport themselves, other employees and materials within
the shipyard, OSHA proposes that three provisions in this section also
would apply to motor vehicles provided by employees. Those provisions
are the requirements that employees use safety belts (Sec. 1915.93(b)(2)),
that motor vehicles have seats for each employee being transported
(Sec. 1915.93(b)(4)), and that tools and materials transported by motor
vehicles be firmly secured (Sec. 1915.93(c)(2)).
Proposed paragraph (a)(3) states that only motor vehicle safety
equipment requirements in paragraph (b)(1) through (b)(3) would apply
to the operation of powered industrial trucks in shipyards. The seating
requirements in paragraph (b)(4) would not apply to powered industrial
trucks manufactured for operation in a standing position, because they
are not equipped with seats. In addition, the Power Industrial Trucks
standard prohibits unauthorized personnel from riding on powered
industrial trucks and requires that a safe place to ride be provided
where riding is allowed (Sec. 1910.178(m)(3)).
Proposed paragraph (a)(3) also provides that the motor vehicle
operation and maintenance requirements in this section would not apply
to powered industrial trucks. Proposed paragraph (a)(3) makes clear
that employers must continue to comply with the maintenance,
inspection, operation, and training requirements for powered industrial
trucks in Sec. 1910.178. Those requirements are more comprehensive and
provide more specific protection than the more general motor vehicle
operation and maintenance requirements proposed here.
Paragraph (b)--Motor vehicle safety equipment--Paragraph (b)
proposes requirements for equipping motor vehicles with safety
equipment and using it while motor vehicles are operated.
OSHA proposes in paragraph (b)(1) to require that each motor
vehicle the employer acquires or puts in service for the first time
after the final rule becomes effective be equipped with safety belts
for each employee operating or riding in the vehicle. The Agency
believes this requirement is necessary and appropriate because, as
mentioned above, shipyard employees have been injured and killed in
motor vehicle-related accidents, and it is well documented that safety
belts reduce the risk of injury and death (Exs. 2-2; 2-4, p. 61: 2-5,
p. 6; 2-6; 2-7; 2-8; 2-11; 2-18). There have been injuries and
fatalities in shipyard employment, as well as other industries,
directly related to employees not using safety belts, including while
operating powered industrial trucks (e.g., forklifts) and other off-
road vehicles (Ex. 2-9). Recognition of the hazard of operating motor
vehicles without safety belts is also evidenced by the national
consensus standards that require motor vehicles to be equipped with
operator restraints and specify that operators and passengers use them
(Ex. 3-13, SAE J386, Operator Restraint Systems for Off-Road Work
Machines, November 1997; Ex. 3-10, ANSI/ASME B56.1-2000 Safety Standard
for Low Lift and High Lift Trucks). The proposal would make subpart F
consistent with those standards.
OSHA is aware that the powered industrial truck standard (Sec.
1910.178) does not require those motor vehicles to be equipped with
safety belts. Much of the standard was promulgated pursuant to section
6(a) and was taken from the ANSI standard on low lift and high lift
trucks that was in effect at the time, ANSI B56.1-1969. The 1969 ANSI
standard did not have a safety belt requirement. However, when the ANSI
standard was revised in 1993, provisions were added requiring that
powered industrial trucks manufactured after 1992 be equipped with
safety belts and requiring that operators use them. The current ANSI/
ASME standard continues to require this. In issuing its 5(a)(1)
enforcement policy regarding operator restraint systems for powered
industrial trucks, OSHA said that the provisions in the revised
national consensus standard evidence "recognition of the hazard of
powered industrial truck tipover and the need for the use of an
operator restraint system" (Ex. 2-15, Memorandum dated October 9,
1996, to Regional Administrators from John Miles).
Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would not require employers to retrofit
those motor vehicles that they are already using with safety belts.
OSHA is proposing to limit application of the requirement to motor
vehicles put into service by the employer for the first time after the
final rule becomes effective. Although OSHA anticipates that the vast
majority of motor vehicles shipyard employers put into service after
the effective date will be new vehicles that have been manufactured
with safety belts, the proposed language also addresses used motor
vehicles employers acquire and use for the first time after the final
rule becomes effective. Applying the standard to both groups of motor
vehicles would ensure that employers consider the safety of employees
whenever they acquire motor vehicles. The proposal includes an
exception to the safety belt requirement for those motor vehicles that
were not originally manufactured with them (e.g., buses). However, if
the motor vehicle was manufactured with safety belts and they have been
removed or are not operational, the employer would have to ensure the
motor vehicle has operational safety belts before it is used for the
first time in the shipyard.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) requires the employer to ensure that
employees use safety belts at all times while operating or riding in a
motor vehicle. As mentioned, motor vehicle accidents are a significant
cause of employee injury and death and safety belts have been shown to
reduce that risk. OSHA notes that the proposed requirement applies to
all motor vehicles used at shipyards including powered industrial
trucks. Forklifts are particularly susceptible to tipovers if they run
over uneven ground, potholes, sand, or railways; turn corners sharply;
or if the mast strikes an object. These situations and conditions are
often found in shipyards. In many forklift tipover accidents, operators
have been injured or killed because they were thrown from the forklift,
or struck or crushed by the forklift when they tried to jump free. In
2001, BLS reported that across private industry 35 of 123 forklift
fatalities (28 percent) involved tipovers or falling from a moving
forklift. In contrast, where forklift operators were wearing safety
belts in many cases the injuries were more limited. In one tipping
accident, where an OSHA inspector noted that the operator was wearing a
safety belt, the injuries were limited to four fingers on one hand.
OSHA is aware of concerns that some forklift operators have about
using operator restraints near water. The Agency has heard some
operators say they do not wear safety belts because they need to be
able to jump free of the forklift if it goes off the dock. However,
OSHA is not aware of any reports of powered industrial trucks running
off a shipyard dock. OSHA requests comment, especially any data and
other information on this issue.
OSHA is also aware of arguments that the safety belt provision is
unnecessary since states have mandatory seat belt laws. However, those
laws only apply to motor vehicles operated on public streets and
highways and do not apply to off-road industrial vehicles such as
powered industrial trucks. As mentioned, shipyard employees have been
injured and killed in off-road motor vehicle accidents, which may have
been prevented if they had been using safety belts. OSHA believes that
where employers inform employees about the safety belt requirement and
require their use that safety belt usage will be significantly higher.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) also requires that the employer ensure
that employees wear safety belts securely and tightly at all times they
are operating or riding in a motor vehicle. OSHA believes this language
is necessary because the safety belt or operator restraint system may
not restrain the employee within the vehicle compartment in the event
of an accident or tipover if the belt is not fastened tightly.
As mentioned above, the safety belt requirement would apply to both
employer and employee provided motor vehicles used to transport
employees, materials and equipment on shipyard property. The risk of
injury exists regardless of whether employees are operating or riding
in employer or employee provided motor vehicles. Applying the proposed
provision to employee provided motor vehicles will ensure that
employees riding in those vehicles will have the same protections as
those riding in employer provided motor vehicles.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would require that employers ensure that
motor vehicle safety equipment is not removed from employer provided
vehicles and replace equipment that is removed. For purposes of this
paragraph, motor vehicle safety equipment includes items such as safety
belts, airbags, lights, brakes, mirrors, horns, windshields and
windshield wipers. This provision must be read in conjunction with
proposed paragraph (c)(1) requiring that employers equip motor vehicles
with safety equipment that is in serviceable and safe operating
condition.
Proposed paragraph (b)(4) requires that motor vehicles used to
transport employees have a firmly secured seat for each employee being
transported. It also requires the employer to ensure that employees use
the seat when they are being transported. This requirement is necessary
because some shipyards transport employees from one worksite to another
in the back of pickup trucks that do not have seats, and these
employees are at risk of injury from falling out of or being thrown
from the vehicle when traveling in the back of pickup trucks, even at
low speeds. In 2001, for instance, a construction employee riding in
the back of a pick-up while placing cones on a highway fell out and was
killed even though the truck was traveling only 10 to 15 mph, which is
the speed limit in most shipyards.
To address this hazard, it is OSHA's intent that employees have a
safe seat to sit in when they are transported in shipyards, and that
they use those seats to ride from one location to another. OSHA is not
requiring that employers retrofit their motor vehicles with seats.
Rather, employers need to ensure that transportation used to move
employees throughout the shipyard has seats for every employee
transported. OSHA believes the provision should not pose a problem for
employers since many shipyard employers already use vans, small buses,
and automobiles to transport employees.
As mentioned, OSHA also proposes to apply this provision to
employee provided motor vehicles. This will ensure that every vehicle
transporting employees in shipyards provides the same protection. OSHA
notes that this provision would not apply to powered industrial trucks
manufactured for operation in a standing position and do not have
operator seats.
The Agency seeks comments on this proposed requirement. In your
establishment and industry, how are employees transported from one
worksite to another and what measures are in place to ensure that they
are safely transported?
Paragraph (c) Motor vehicle maintenance and operation--Paragraph
(c) proposes new requirements for the maintenance and operation of
motor vehicles used in shipyards.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1) requires that employers ensure that each
vehicle is maintained in a "serviceable and safe operating
condition." Safe operating condition refers to the condition of
equipment that directly affects the safe operation of the vehicle. For
example, the proposal would require that motor vehicle safety equipment
such as visibility and warning devices, headlights, taillights, horns,
windshield wipers, defogging or defrosting devices and safety belts be
in safe working order. In Sec. 1915.95, OSHA proposes to define
"serviceable condition" to mean the state or ability of a vehicle to
operate as it was intended by the manufacturer to operate. Accordingly,
motor vehicles that are operated in accordance with manufacturer's
instructions and recommendations would be considered in compliance with
this provision.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would also require that motor vehicles be
removed from service if they are not in serviceable and safe operating
condition. It is OSHA's intent that the motor vehicle could not be used
for shipyard employment until the problem or damage is repaired.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would require that tools or equipment be
secured while being transported to prevent unsafe movement. This will
reduce the risk of injury due to heavy or sharp tools or equipment
sliding into or hitting operators or passengers. This provision does
not require that all materials be secured, only those that may pose a
hazard to employees. Items that do not pose a hazard to the driver or
passengers could be transported in the vehicle cab or back of a pickup
truck without being secured. As mentioned, this requirement would also
apply to employee provided motor vehicles used at shipyards.
In paragraph (c)(3), OSHA proposes to address motor vehicle
problems associated with the intermingling of pedestrian, bicycle and
motor vehicle traffic in shipyards. When pedestrians, bicyclists and
motor vehicles share shipyard roadways there is potential for
accidents. Often accidents occur because the motor vehicle operator
does not see the pedestrian or bicyclist in time to avoid hitting them.
Due to the size of many shipyards, roads may be narrow or unmarked, and
parking space may be limited. As a result, many employers provide
bicycles or allow employees to use their own to get from one location
to another. As the use of bicycles has grown, so too have the reports
of accidents. For example, an employee riding a bicycle to perform
regularly assigned work tasks in a Mississippi shipyard was killed when
he collided with a motor vehicle (Ex. 2-1). It is OSHA's intention to
ensure that employees riding bicycles and walking can be seen by motor
vehicle operators and protected from injury.
Paragraph (c)(3) would require that employers implement measures to
ensure motor vehicle operators can see and avoid hitting pedestrians
and bicyclist traveling in shipyards. The proposal identifies some
measures employers may implement. For example, the employer may
establish dedicated travel lanes for pedestrians and bicyclists and
install crosswalks and traffic control devices (e.g., stop signs,
pavement markings) to control pedestrian and bicycle traffic across
roadways. Using physical barriers to separate the travel lanes will
also help to prevent injury. For travel lanes to be effective, the
employer must ensure that the dedicated lanes are wide enough. For
example, motor vehicle lanes need to be wide enough so they do not
interfere with pedestrian/bicycle lanes and pedestrian/bicycle lanes
need to be wide enough for safe passage of both pedestrian and bicyclists.
The employer may also comply with the proposed provision by
providing pedestrians and bicyclists with equipment such as reflective
vests, reflectors or lights. OSHA believes this measure should not pose
problems for employers since bicycles are manufactured with reflectors
and lights. In addition, many shipyard employers already provide
reflective vests so employees are visible to equipment operators.
The Agency seeks comment on the proposed provisions to reduce
injuries related to the intermingling of pedestrian, bicycle and motor
vehicle traffic in shipyards. OSHA also requests comments on the safe
operation of motor vehicles. What does your company do to ensure that
employees operate motor vehicles safely? Do you have requirements for
employees driving in your facilities or using company vehicles?
Section 1915.94 Servicing Multi-Piece and Single Piece Rim Wheels
OSHA proposes to incorporate by reference the general industry
standard (Sec. 1910.177) and non-mandatory appendices on servicing
multi-piece and single piece rim wheels. The general industry standard
currently exempts shipyard employment (Sec. 1910.177(a)(2)). (To avoid
any confusion, OSHA also proposes to amend Sec. 1910.177 to delete the
exemption as it applies to shipyard employment.)
OSHA decided that this gap in coverage should be remedied by
applying the general industry standard to shipyard employment after a
preventable fatality was reported in 1999 at a special trade contractor
site during rim servicing.
The general industry standard applies to servicing large vehicles
such as trucks, tractors, trailers, buses and off-road machines, all of
which are used in shipyard employment. The standard does not apply to
servicing rim wheels on automobiles or on pickup trucks and vans using
"LT" (light trucks) tires (1910.177(a)(1)).
The standard establishes requirements addressing four major areas:
(1) Training for all tire servicing employees (Sec. 1910.177(c)); (2)
the use of proper equipment such as clip-on chucks, restraining
devices, or barriers to retain the wheel components in the event of an
incident during the inflation of tires (Sec. 1910.177(d)); (3) the use
of compatible components (Sec. 1910.177(e)); and (4) the use of safe
operating procedures for servicing multi-piece and single-piece rim
wheels (Sec. 1910.177(f) and (g)). The Agency believes that applying
the general industry standard to shipyard employment should not pose a
problem for employers because many shipyards that service the tires of
their own vehicles are aware of and adhere to the safety provisions of
Sec. 1910.177.
OSHA requests comment on the proposed provision. To what extent do
shipyards service multi-piece and single piece rim wheels? What safety
precautions are followed to ensure employees are not injured during
these tasks?
Section 1915.95 Definitions
In Sec. 1915.95, OSHA proposes to add definitions for terms used
in subpart F. The Agency believes that defining key terms in the
regulatory text will make the standards easier to understand and to
comply with. OSHA is not including a discussion of the terms that apply
to the control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout) in proposed Sec.
1915.89. Most of those terms are discussed throughout the preamble
section for Sec. 1915.89 above. The terms are affected employee,
authorized employee, capable of being locked out, energized, energy
isolating device, energy source, hot tap, lockout, lockout device,
normal production operations, servicing and/or maintenance, setting up,
and ship's systems.
Hazardous or toxic substances. OSHA proposes to define hazardous or
toxic substances to include any of the following: any material listed
in the U.S. DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR part 172), any
substance regulated by subpart Z of 29 CFR part 1910, any atmosphere
with an oxygen content of less than 19.5%, or any corrosive substance
or environmental contaminant that may expose employees to injury,
illness or disease. Harmful environmental contaminants would include
coliform and fecal matter.
Health care professional is proposed to mean a physician or any
other health care provider whose legally permitted scope of practice
allows the provider to independently provide or be delegated the
responsibility to provide some or all of the advice or consultation
this subpart requires. (See Sec. 1915.87(b) for further discussion.)
Motor vehicle is proposed to mean any motor-driven vehicle operated
by an employee that is used to transport employees, passengers, or
property. For the purposes of this subpart, motor vehicles would
include, but are not limited to, passenger cars, light trucks, vans,
motorcycles, all terrain vehicles, powered industrial trucks, and other
similar types of vehicles. The proposed definition excludes boats and
vehicles operated exclusively on a rail(s).
Portable toilet facility is proposed to mean a non-sewered facility
in which urine and defecation is collected and contained. Portable
toilet facilities may be flushable, with water or another flushing
agent. They also may be non-flushable, such as facilities that use
chemicals or biological agents to treat waste. The proposed definition
does not include privies, which are unlikely to be found in shipyards
because many State and local regulations prohibit them near shorelines.
Potable water is proposed to mean water (1) approved for drinking
by the State or local authority having jurisdiction, or (2) meeting the
quality standards prescribed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's National Primary Water Regulations (40 CFR part 141).
Requiring that drinking water meet those requirements ensures that it
will be free of environmental contaminants and toxic materials.
The proposed definition, for purposes of subpart F, updates the
existing definition in Sec. 1910.141(a)(2) to reflect that the EPA
regulations have replaced the U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water
Standards. SESAC recommended that OSHA delete the reference to Federal
drinking water regulations as a way to simplify the definition.
However, OSHA believes that the reference needs to be retained to
ensure that employee drinking water at least meets a uniform national
quality baseline and that there will not be a gap in protection in
areas where there may not be State or local drinking water regulations
or jurisdiction. OSHA requests comment on whether the reference to
Federal drinking water regulations should be retained.
Sanitation facilities is proposed to mean facilities provided for
employee health and personal needs such as potable drinking water,
toilet facilities, handwashing and drying facilities, showers
(including quick drench/flush), changing rooms, eating and food
preparation areas, first aid stations, on-site medical service areas
and waste disposal. The proposed definition also includes supplies for
sanitation facilities such as soap, toilet paper, towels, and drinking
cups. OSHA notes that the proposed rule does not require employers to
provide certain sanitation facilities such as on-site eating and
drinking areas. However, where such facilities are provided they would
have to meet the sanitation requirements OSHA proposes.
Serviceable condition means the state or ability of a tool,
machine, vehicle, or other device to operate as it was
intended by the manufacturer to operate. For tools, machines and
vehicles to be considered in serviceable condition, they must be
maintained in good working condition. OSHA notes that if these devices
are maintained and operated in accordance with manufacturer
instructions and recommendations they would be considered to be in
compliance with the requirement to be in serviceable condition.
Sewered toilet facility means a fixture maintained for the purpose
of urination and defecation that is connected to a sewer, septic tank,
holding tank (bilge), or on-site sewage disposal treatment facility and
that is flushed with water. For purposes of this subpart, toilet
facilities that are a permanent fixture onboard a vessel or vessel
section would be considered to be sewered toilet facilities.
Vehicle safety equipment is proposed to mean those systems and
devices installed on a motor vehicle for the purposes of effecting the
safe operation of the vehicle such as safety belts, airbags,
headlights, tail lights, emergency hazard lights, windshield wipers,
brakes, horn, mirrors, windshields and other windows, and locks.
Vermin is proposed to mean any insects, birds, and other animals,
such as rodents and feral cats, which may create safety and health
hazards for employees.
Walking and working surfaces is proposed to mean any surface on or
through which employees gain access to or perform job tasks. Walking
and working surfaces also include any surface upon or through which
employees are required or allowed to walk or work in the workplace.
Walking and working surfaces include, but are not limited to, work
areas, accessways, aisles, exits, gangways, ladders, passageways,
stairs, steps, ramps, and walkways. This definition is drawn from the
proposed rule for walking and working surfaces, subpart D of part 1910
(55 FR 13360 (04/10/1990)). OSHA believes that using this term in place
of the list of specific working and walking areas will help to simplify
subpart F.
Proposed Deletions
OSHA proposes not to include in revised subpart F the following
provisions that are currently applicable to shipyard employment. The
hazards and working conditions these provisions address are not present
in the shipyard industry.
Section 1910.141(f)--OSHA is proposing not to retain the existing
requirement to provide facilities to dry work clothing (i.e.,
protective clothing) before it is worn again. Information from site
visits and industry meetings indicates that the provision may not be
necessary because shipyards almost exclusively provide disposable
protective clothing. OSHA requests comments or information about
whether this provision is still needed in the shipyard industry.
Section 1910.141(h)--OSHA is proposing not to retain the existing
requirements addressing food handling. OSHA believes that existing
State and local health codes provide adequate protection for the
hazards this section is intended to address. OSHA requests comment.
Section 1915.97(a)--OSHA is proposing not to retain the existing
requirement on controls and personal protective equipment (PPE). This
provision was adopted 30 years ago, prior to promulgation of standards
addressing specific hazards and the PPE requirements in subpart I of
part 1915. Those standards identify and require the controls and PPE
this section addresses.
Section 1915.97(e)--OSHA is proposing to delete the existing
prohibition that minors under 18 years of age not be employed in
shipbreaking or related equipment. The prohibition is the only OSHA
rule that regulates the working activities allowed for youth employees.
States have numerous rules regulating work conditions for youth
employees. At the Federal level, OSHA's sister agency in the Department
of Labor, the Employment Standards Administration regulates youth
working conditions under the authority of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA). To protect young employees from hazardous employment, the FLSA
provides for a minimum age of 18 years in occupations found and
declared by the Secretary to be particularly hazardous or detrimental
to the health or well-being of minors 16 and 17 years of age. The
Secretary has issued 17 orders, published at 29 CFR part 570 subpart E,
listing the occupations where persons less than 18 years of age are
prohibited from working. Order 15 of the Part 570 subpart E prohibits
minors from working in all occupations in wrecking, demolition, and
shipbreaking operations, which are defined as "all work, including
clean-up and salvage work, performed at the site of the total or
partial razing, demolishing, or dismantling of a building, bridge,
steeple, tower, chimney, other structure, ship or other vessel" (Sec.
570.66). OSHA believes that the Sec. 1915.97(e) prohibitions are
duplicative of the part 570 prohibitions, therefore, the Agency is
proposing to delete the section.
OSHA asks for comment on the extent to which youth employees are
employed in the shipyard industries, what occupations they work in,
data on work-related injuries and illnesses occurring to youth
employees, and whether the Sec. 1915.97(e) prohibition is needed to
protect youth employees.
V. Executive Summary of the Preliminary Economic and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Screening Analysis
Introduction. OSHA's Preliminary Economic and Regulatory
Flexibility Screening Analysis (PEA) addresses issues related to the
costs, benefits, technological feasibility, and economic feasibility
(including small business impacts) of the Agency's proposed revision of
29 CFR 1915 subpart F on General Working Conditions in Shipyard
Employment. This analysis also evaluates the non-regulatory
alternatives to the proposal.
OSHA has determined that this proposal is not an economically
significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and not a major rule
under the Congressional Review provisions of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 609). As required
by section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866, OSHA has provided OMB's Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs with an assessment of the costs,
benefits, and alternatives of this proposal, which are summarized
below. E.O. 12866 requires regulatory agencies to conduct an economic
analysis for rules that meet certain criteria. The most frequently used
criterion under E.O. 12866 is that the rule will impose annual costs on
the economy of $100 million or more. Neither the benefits nor the costs
of this proposed rule exceed $100 million.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), as amended in 1996, requires OSHA to determine whether the
Agency's regulatory actions will have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. OSHA's Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis indicates that the proposal will not have significant impacts
on a substantial number of small entities. OSHA's PEA and Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis include: A description of the industries
potentially affected by the proposal; an evaluation of the risks the
proposal addresses; an assessment of the benefits attributable to the
proposal; a determination of the technological feasibility of the
proposed requirements; an estimate of the costs employers would incur
to comply with the proposal; a determination of the economic
feasibility of compliance with the proposal; and an analysis of the
economic and other impacts associated with this rulemaking, including
those on small businesses. The executive summary of the PEA is presented
here and the full analysis has been placed in the rulemaking docket (Ex. 17).
OSHA's preliminary analysis estimates that the proposal will affect
approximately 639 establishments and 86,764 employees in the shipyard
employment industry. OSHA estimates that the proposal will prevent 1.1
deaths and 142.2 injuries and cost employers about $1 million per year
to implement. The Agency estimates $7.1 million in monetized benefits
from these prevented injuries. Following OMB guidelines to monetize all
benefits, OSHA estimates the value of a statistical life of 1.1
prevented deaths at $8.3 million. Monetized benefits, therefore, would
total $15.4 million annually.
Affected Establishments and Employees. The proposal will affect all
establishments in shipyard employment, which consists of shipbuilding,
shipbreaking, ship repair and related employment. For purposes of this
analysis, OSHA incorporated the following three definitions of "small
firms" and provided separate analyses for each: (1) Firms with fewer
than 1,000 employees (the Small Business Administration (SBA)
definition of small businesses in this sector); (2) firms with fewer
than 250 employees (the definition of small business recommended by the
Shipyard Fire Protection Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee); and
(3) firms with fewer than 20 employees. OSHA based its estimates of the
number of firms, establishments, employment, and wages on BLS and U.S.
Census Bureau data for North American Industrial Classification (NAIC)
industry sector 336611. Also, OSHA used firm data from SBA in this
analysis. Profit rates are based on data from the Internal Revenue
Service's 2001 Corporation Source Book of Statistics of Income. Table 6
shows the total number of establishments, number of firms, employment,
revenues and payroll per establishment affected by the proposed rule.
As the table shows, there are 614 firms with 639 establishments in the
affected industry. The industry employs 86,764 employees, of whom 72
percent are estimated to be production employees.
Table 6.--Industrial Profile for the Proposed Standard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual (1,000)
Size class Firms Establishments Employees Production -------------------------------
employees Payroll Revenues
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipyards......................... 1,000 & Up.......... 4 9 59,456 42,808 $2,402,689 $8,650,079
500-999............. 7 12 9,075 6,534 310,743 1,191,169
250-499............. 19 21 5,813 4,185 276,533 923,357
100-249............. 43 49 5,813 4,189 305,522 925,760
20-99............... 50 53 2,793 2,011 139,667 459,032
Off-Site.......................... 20-99............... 76 80 1,957 1,409 94,511 354,512
1-19................ 415 415 1,852 1,333 98,717 310,665
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... .................... 614 639 86,764 62,470 3,628,382 12,814,574
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis.
Evaluation of Risk and Potential Benefits. OSHA's risk profile for
exposure to the hazards the proposal addresses is based on data from
the CFOI database and the BLS Survey of Occupational Injuries and
Illnesses, as well as an analysis of OSHA fatality/catastrophe
inspection data obtained from the Agency's IMIS database.
OSHA anticipates that the proposal will significantly reduce the
number of shipyard accidents involving electrical contacts, being
caught in machinery, and being struck by motor vehicles and their
resulting injuries and fatalities. OSHA believes that the proposed
requirements for controlling hazardous energy (i.e., energy control
procedures, training, inspections) and motor vehicle safety will help
to save lives and prevent injuries in the shipyard workforce. OSHA also
believes that the new proposed CPR requirements for first aid providers
will help to save lives and reduce the severity of injuries that do
occur. OSHA estimates that compliance with the proposal would annually
prevent 1.1 fatalities, 49.9 cases involving days away from work
injuries, and 92.3 non-lost workday injuries, as stated in Chapter IV
of the PEA Ex. 17.
In addition to saving lives and reducing injuries in shipyards,
OSHA believes that compliance with the proposal would yield substantial
cost savings to parties within and connected with the shipyard
employment industry and ultimately to society as a whole. These
monetized benefits take the form of willingness to pay estimates to
avoid an injury or death. OSHA estimates monetized benefits of $7.1
million from the 142.2 avoided injuries from compliance with the
proposal. When the monetized benefit of 1.1 avoided deaths ($8.3
million) is added, total annual monetized benefits equal $15.4 million.
Technological Feasibility and Compliance Costs (including Net
Benefits). Consistent with the legal framework established by the OSH
Act and court decisions, OSHA has determined that the proposal is
technologically feasible. The proposal does not require any practices
not already undertaken in many shipyards today. For example, a number
of shipyard employers already are training their employees about the
release of hazardous energy in servicing operations.
Annualized compliance cost estimates are annualized costs to
employers using a 7 percent discount rate and a ten year life for one-
time expenses. These proposed estimates are based on the employment and
establishment counts in Chapter II (Industrial Profile) of the PEA,
(Ex. 17) and the dollar costs needed to comply. These estimates also
consider non-compliance rates to account for establishments that have
already complied with the requirements.
To develop the proposed cost estimates, OSHA first examined the
extent to which shipyard employers were already in compliance with
existing and proposed OSHA requirements, with rules of other parties
(such as the U.S. Navy in some shipyards), and with voluntary codes and
best practices. Identifying provisions for which there is already
substantial or full compliance, OSHA arrived at a list of activities for
which shipyard employers would incur costs, shown in Table 7. Table 7
presents the total annualized costs of the proposal, by major provision,
which total $1,010,778. Most of the costs are associated with the requirements
for controlling hazardous energy (Lockout/Tagout).
Table 7.--Estimated Total Annualized Compliance Costs by Provision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total annualized
Requirement costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanitation:
Handwashing Facilities........................... $254,540
Medical Services and First Aid:
CPR Training..................................... 136,442
Lockout/Tagout:
Energy Control Program........................... 107,857
Full Employee Protection......................... 330,373
Protective Materials & Hardware.................. 16,069
Training and Communication....................... 132,622
Periodic Inspections & Certification............. 20,006
------------------
Subtotal....................................... 606,927
------------------
Vehicle Safety:
Reinstalling Safety Equipment.................... 12,762
Rim Wheel Training............................... 107
------------------
Subtotal....................................... 12,869
------------------
Total........................................ 1,010,778
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA.
Net Benefits. For informational purposes, the Agency compared the
estimated costs of compliance to the monetized benefits of the proposed
standard. The Agency estimates monetized death benefits of $8.3 million
dollars and monetized injury benefits of $7.1 million annually (see
Chapter IV of the PEA). This yields total monetized benefits of $15.4
million annually. When the costs of compliance are compared to these
estimates, the Agency concludes that the annualized net benefits of the
proposed standard equal $14.4 million.
Economic Impacts. OSHA analyzed the impacts of these compliance
costs on firms in the shipyard employment sector by comparing costs as
a percentage of revenues and costs as a percentage of profits. These
two measures (in percentages) correspond to two assumptions used by
economists to set bounds for the range of possible impacts. One
assumption is no-cost pass-through (i.e., that employers will be unable
to pass any of the costs of compliance forward to their customers).
This corresponds to compliance costs as a percentage of profits. The
second assumption is full-cost pass-through (i.e., that employers will
be able to pass all of the costs of compliance forward to their
customers). This corresponds to compliance costs as a percentage of
revenues. As summarized in Table 8, OSHA estimates that if affected
establishments in the shipyard employment sector were forced to absorb
these compliance costs entirely from profits (a highly unlikely
scenario), profits would be reduced by an average of 0.14 percent. At
the other extreme, if affected establishments were able to pass all of
these compliance costs forward to their customers, OSHA projects that
the price (revenue) increase required to pay for these costs would be
less than 0.01 percent. Given the minimal potential impact on both
prices and profits, OSHA concludes that the proposed regulation is
economically feasible.
Table 8.--Economic Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per Compliance cost Compliance cost
establishment as a % of as a % of
compliance cost revenues profits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size Class:
1-19.................................................. $56 0.01 0.20
1-250................................................. 422 0.01 0.16
1-1,000............................................... 749 0.01 0.20
All................................................... 1,582 0.01 0.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis.
Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis. The RFA requires
regulatory agencies to determine whether regulatory actions will
adversely affect small entities. For employers in NAIC 336611, small
firms are defined by SBA as those with less than 1,000 employees. As
shown in Table 9, for firms with less than 1,000 employees, proposed
costs are 0.20 percent of profits and 0.01 percent of revenues. OSHA
also examined costs as a percentage of profits and revenues for firms
with less than 250 employees, a definition of "small entity"
recommended by the Shipyard Fire Protection Negotiated Rulemaking
Advisory Committee and for firms with less than 20 employees to see
whether there might be significant impacts on the very smallest firms.
For firms with less than 250 employees, proposed costs were 0.16 percent
of profits and 0.01 percent of revenues. For firms with less than 20
employees, proposed costs were 0.20 percent of profits and 0.01 percent
of revenues. The major source of the small variation in impacts is the
low estimated compliance costs incurred by the small firms.
Table 9.--Small Firm Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance cost Compliance cost
Per firm as a % of as a % of
compliance cost revenues profits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size Class:
1-19.................................................. $59 0.01 0.20
1-250................................................. 432 0.01 0.16
1-1,000............................................... 768 0.01 0.20
All................................................... 1,645 0.01 0.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis
OSHA has set the criteria that if costs exceed one percent of
revenues or five percent of profits, then the impact on small entities
is considered significant for purposes of complying with the RFA. For
all of the classes of affected small firms in the shipyard employment
industry, the costs of the proposal would be less than one percent of
revenues and five percent of profits. OSHA therefore certifies that
this proposal will not have an economically significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Non-Regulatory Alternatives. OSHA concludes that economic and
social alternatives to a federal workplace standard fail to adequately
protect employees in the shipyard employment industry from the hazards
the proposal addresses. Tort liability laws and workers' compensation
provide some protection, but institutional factors limit effective
means of addressing the significant costs of occupational injuries and
illnesses. Therefore, OSHA finds that this proposal will provide the
necessary remedy.
VI. Environmental Assessment
The proposed standard has been reviewed in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR part 1500), and DOL NEPA Procedures
(29 CFR part 11). The provisions of the standard focus on the reduction
and avoidance of accidents occurring in shipyard employment.
Consequently, no major negative impact is foreseen on air, water or
soil quality, plant or animal life, the use of land or other aspects of
the environment.
VII. Federalism
OSHA has reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with E.O. 13132
(64 FR 43255 (8/10/1999)) regarding Federalism. This Order requires
that agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from limiting State
policy options, consult with States prior to taking any actions that
would restrict State policy options, and take such actions only when
there is clear constitutional authority and the presence of a problem
of national scope. The Order provides for preemption of State law only
if there is a clear constitutional authority and the presence of a
problem of national scope. Additionally, the Order provides for
preemption of State law only if there is a clear Congressional intent
for the Agency to do so. Any such preemption is to be limited to the
extent possible.
Section 18 of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 667) expresses Congress' clear
intent to preempt State laws relating to issues on which Federal OSHA
has promulgated occupational safety or health standards. Under the OSH
Act, a State can avoid preemption on issues covered by Federal
standards only if it submits, and obtains Federal approval of, a plan
for the development of such standards and their enforcement.
Occupational safety and health standards developed by such State Plan
States must, among other things, be at least as effective in providing
safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal
standards. Where such standards are applicable to products distributed
or used in interstate commerce, they may not unduly burden commerce or
must be justified by compelling local conditions (see section
18(c)(2)). The Federal standards on shipyard employment operations
address hazards that are not unique to any one State or region of the
country.
Subject to these requirements, States with occupational safety and
health plans approved under section 18 of the OSH Act are free to
develop and enforce under State law their own requirements for safety
and health standards. A State Plan State can develop its own State
standards to deal with any special problems that might be encountered
in a particular State. Moreover, because this standard is written, to
the extent possible, in general performance-oriented terms, there is
considerable flexibility for State Plans to require, and for employers
to use, methods of compliance which are appropriate to the working
conditions covered by the standard. However, most shipyards even in
State Plan States remain subject to Federal OSHA jurisdiction as only a
few States (California, Minnesota, Vermont and Washington) have elected
to cover shipyards and other maritime employment.
The Agency concludes that this proposed rule complies with E.O.
13132. In States without OSHA-approved State Plans, Congress expressly
provides for OSHA standards to preempt State job safety and health
rules in areas addressed by Agency standards; in these States, the
proposed rule would limit State policy options in the same manner as
every OSHA standard. In States with OSHA-approved State Plans, this
action would not significantly limit State policy options; these States
will be able to address any special conditions within the framework of
the OSH Act while ensuring that their standards are at least as
effective as the Federal standard. State comments are invited on this
proposal and will be fully considered prior to promulgation of a final
rule.
VIII. Unfunded Mandates
For the purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2
U.S.C. 1501, et seq.), as well as E.O. 12875, this rule does not
include any Federal mandate that may result in increased expenditures
by State, local, and tribal governments, or increased expenditures by
the private sector of more than $100 million.
IX. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The proposed standard for General Working Conditions in Shipyard
Employment contains collection-of-information (paperwork) requirements
that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
and OMB regulations (5 CFR part 1320). The PRA-95 defines "collection of
information" as "the obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or
requiring the disclosure to third parties or the public of facts or opinions
by or for an agency regardless of form or format * * *" (44 U.S.C.
3502(3)(A)).
The collection-of-information requirements identified in the NPRM
have been submitted to OMB for review (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). OSHA
solicits comments on the collection-of-information requirements and the
estimated burden hours associated with these collections including
comment on the following:
Whether the proposed collection-of-information
requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's
functions, including whether the information is useful;
The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the collection-of-information requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply,
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.
The title, description of the need for and proposed use of the
information, summary of the collections of information, description of
respondents, and frequency of response of the information collection
are described below, along with an estimate of the annual reporting
burden and cost as required by 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) and 1320.8(d)(2).
Title: General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment (29 CFR
part 1915, subpart F).
Description and Proposed Use of the Collection-of-Information
Requirements
OSHA is proposing to revise and update the existing standards in
subpart F of 29 CFR part 1915 that address hazardous working conditions
in shipyard employment. These standards cover many diverse working
conditions in shipyard employment, including housekeeping, lighting,
utilities, work in confined or isolated spaces, lifeboats, sanitation,
and medical services and first aid.
OSHA also proposes to add new requirements to protect employees
from hazardous working conditions that subpart F does not currently
address. These proposed additions include the control of hazardous
energy (lockout/tagout); motor vehicle safety equipment, operation and
maintenance; accident prevention tags; and servicing multi-piece and
single piece rim wheels.
OSHA adopted the existing subpart F standards in 1972 (37 FR 22458
(10/19/1972)) pursuant to section 6(a) of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.). Section 6(a)
permitted OSHA, within two years of the passage of the OSH Act, to
adopt as an occupational safety or health standard any national
consensus and established Federal standards (29 U.S.C. 655(a)). The
provisions in subpart F were adopted from existing Federal regulations
promulgated under Section 41 of the Longshore and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act (LHWCA) (33 U.S.C. 941), as well as national consensus
standards.
OSHA believes the proposed revisions and additions to subpart F are
necessary and reasonable to protect the safety and health of shipyard
employees.
The following table identifies and describes the need for the new
collection-of-information requirements contained in the proposed
standard.
Table 10.--Collection of Information Requirements Contained in the
Proposed Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collection-of-Information Requirements Contained in the Proposed
Standard
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1915.87(f)(3): The employer shall store stretchers in a clearly-
marked location in a manner that prevents damage and protects them from
environmental conditions.
Marking the location of the stretchers ensures that they will be easily
located in the event of an emergency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1915.89(b)(4)(i): Energy control procedures. (i) Procedures shall
be developed, documented and utilized for the control of potentially
hazardous energy when employees are engaged in the activities covered
by this section.
Employers use this information as the basis for effectively identifying
operations and processes in the workplace that require energy control
procedures; ensuring the safe application, use and removal of energy
controls; and providing information and training to employees about the
purpose and function of energy-control procedures. These procedures
ensure that employees are protected while working on machines,
equipment or systems that potentially contain hazardous energy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1915.89(b)(6)(i): The employer shall conduct a periodic
inspection of each energy control procedure at least annually to ensure
that the procedures and the requirements of this standard are being
followed and to correct any deficiencies.
This information will be used as a basis for employee retraining and to
determine whether employers need to revise their energy control
procedures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1915.89(b)(6)(ii): The employer shall certify that the periodic
inspections have been performed. The certification shall identify the
machine, equipment or system on which the energy control procedure was
being utilized, the date of the inspection, the employees included in
the inspection and the person performing the inspection.
Certifying the inspections assures that the employer has performed a
periodic inspection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1915.89(b)(7)(iv): Certification. The employer shall certify that
employee training has been accomplished and is being kept up to date.
The certification shall contain each employee's name and dates of
training.
Written certification assures the employer that employees receive the
training specified by the Standard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1915.89(b)(9): Notification of employees. Affected employees
shall be notified by the employer or authorized employee of the
application and removal of lockout devices or tagout devices.
Notification shall be given before the controls are applied, and after
they are removed from the machine, equipment or system.
Sec. 1915.89(d)(2)(ii): After lockout or tagout devices have been
removed and before a machine equipment or system is started, affected
employees shall be notified that the lockout or tagout device(s) have
been removed.
OSHA is not taking a paperwork burden for this specification because it
does not add burden to the notification requirement in paragraph
(b)(9).
Sec. 1915.89(d)(3)(ii): Lockout or tagout devices removal. Each
lockout or tagout device shall be removed from each energy isolating
device by the employee who applied the device.
Exception to paragraph (d)(3): When the authorized employee who applied
the lockout or tagout device is not available to remove it, that device
may be removed under the direction of the employer, provided that
specific procedures and training for such removal have been developed,
documented and incorporated into the employer's energy control program.
The employer shall demonstrate that the specific procedure provides
equivalent safety to the removal of the device by the authorized
employee who applied it. The specific procedures shall include at least
the following elements:
(ii) Making all reasonable efforts to contact the authorized
employee to inform he or she that his or her lockout or tagout
device has been removed; and
(iii) Ensuring that the authorized employee has this knowledge
before he/she resumes work at that facility.
Such notification informs employees of the impending interruption of the
normal production operations, and serves as a reminder of the
restrictions imposed on them by the energy-control program. In
addition, this requirement ensures that employees do not attempt to
reactivate a machine or piece of equipment after an authorized employee
isolates its energy source and renders it inoperative. Notifying
employees after removing an energy-control device alerts them that the
machines and equipment are no longer safe for servicing, maintenance,
and repair.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1915.89(e)(2)(i): Outside personnel (contractors, ship's crew,
etc.) Whenever outside servicing personnel such as contractors or
ship's crew are to be engaged in activities covered by the scope and
application of this standard, the on-site employer and the outside
employer shall inform each other of their respective lockout or tagout
procedures.
This provision ensures that each employer knows about the unique energy-
control procedures used by the other employer preventing any
misunderstanding regarding the implementation of lockout or tagout
procedures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1915.94 Servicing multi-piece and single piece rim wheels.
Sec. 1910.177(d)(5): Current charts or rim manuals containing
instructions for the type of wheels being serviced shall be available
in the service area.
Paragraph (d)(3)(iv) requires that when restraining devices and barriers
are removed from service because they are defective, they shall not be
returned to service until they are repaired and reinspected. If the
repair is structural, the manufacturer or a Registered Professional
Engineer must certify that the strength requirements specified in
(d)(3)(i) of the Standard have been met.
The certification records are used to assure that equipment has been
repaired properly. The certification records also provide the most
efficient means for OSHA compliance officers to determine that an
employer is complying with the Standard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB Control Number: 1218 0NEW.
Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
Number of Respondents: 639.
Frequency: On occasion.
Average Time per response: Time per response ranges from 15 seconds
for affected employees to be notified of the application and removal of
lockout and tagout devices to 80 hours for large shipyards (shipyards
employing more than 250 employees) to develop energy control
procedures.
Estimated Total Burden hours: 10,491.
Estimated Costs (Operation and Maintenance): 0.
Interested parties who wish to comment on the collection-of-
information requirements contained in this proposal must send their
written comments regarding the burden hour and cost estimates or other
aspects of the information collection request to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for OSHA
(RIN 1218-AB50), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. The Agency also encourages
commenters to submit their comments on these collection-of-information
requirements to OSHA, along with their comments on the proposed rule.
(See ADDRESSES section.). Persons are not required to respond to the
collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB number.
To read or download the complete ICR, go to http://www.regulations.gov
(Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675) or http://www.dockets.osha.gov
(Docket No. S-049). You also may obtain an electronic copy of the complete
ICR at http://www.reginfo.gov. Click on "Inventory of Approved Information
Collection Collections, Collection Under Review, Recently Approved/Expired,"
then scroll under "Currently Under Review" to Department of Labor (DOL) to
view all of DOL's ICRs, including those ICRS submitted for proposed rulemakings.
For further information, contact Mr. Todd Owen, OSHA, Directorate of
Standards and Guidance, OSHA, Room N-3609, U.S. Department of Labor,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693-2222.
X. State Plan States
When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or standards amendment
which imposes additional or more stringent requirements than an
existing standard, the 26 States and U.S. Territories with their own
OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans must revise their
standards to reflect the new standard or amendment, or show the Agency
why such action is unnecessary (e.g., because an existing State
standard covering this area already is at least as effective as the new
Federal standard or amendment) (29 U.S.C. 553.5(a)). The State standard
must be at least as effective as the final Federal rule, must be
applicable to both the private and public (i.e., State and local
government employees) sectors, and must be completed within six months
of the publication date of the final Federal rule. When OSHA
promulgates a new standard or amendment that does not impose additional
or more stringent requirements than an existing standard, States are
not required to revise their standards, although the Agency may
encourage them to do so. The 26 States and Territories with OSHA-
approved State Plans are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana,
Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico,
North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. Connecticut, New Jersey,
New York, and the Virgin Islands have OSHA-approved State Plans that
apply to State and local government employees only.
Since this proposed rule imposes additional or more stringent
requirements, State Plans that cover maritime issues and/or have public
employees working in the maritime industries covered by this standard
would be required to revise their standard appropriately within six
months of publication of the final rule.
XI. Public Participation
Submission of Comments and Access to Docket
OSHA invites comments on all aspects of the proposed rule.
Throughout this document OSHA has invited comment on specific issues
and requested information and data about practices at your
establishment and in your industry. OSHA will carefully review and
evaluate these comments, information and data, as well as all other
information in the rulemaking record, to determine how to proceed.
You may submit comments in response to this document (1)
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-S049-
2006-0675). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading
document files electronically. If, instead, you wish to mail additional
materials in reference to an electronic or fax submission, you must
submit three copies to the OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES section).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by name, date, and docket number so OSHA can attach them to your
comments.
Because of security-related procedures, the use of regular mail may
cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information
about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger or courier service, please contact the OSHA
Docket Office at (202) 693-2350 (TTY (877) 889-5627).
Comments and submissions in response to this Federal Register
notice are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket
No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675--). Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth.
Exhibits referenced in this Federal Register document are posted at
http://www.regulations.gov (Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675) and/or at
http://dockets.osha.gov (OSHA Docket Nos. S-049, SESAC-1988 through
SESAC-1993, MACOSH-1995 through MACOSH-2005, S-012, S-012A, S-012B, S-
024, H-308).
Although all submissions in response to this Federal Register
notice and exhibits referenced in this Federal Register notice are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov and/or http://dockets.osha.gov
indexes, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through those Webpages. All submissions
and exhibits, including copyrighted material, are available for
inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using
http://www.regulations.gov to submit comments and access dockets is
available at the Webpage's User Tips link. Contact the OSHA Docket
Office for information about materials not available through the
Webpage and for assistance in using the Internet to locate docket
submissions.
Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available
at http://www.regulations.gov. This document, as well as news releases
and other relevant information, also are available at OSHA's Webpage at
http://www.osha.gov.
Requests for Informal Public Hearings
Under section 6(b)(3) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 655) and 29 CFR
1911.11, interested parties may request an informal public hearing.
Hearing requests must be submitted to the OSHA Docket Office at the
address above and must comply with the following:
(1) The hearing requests must include the name and address of the
person submitting them;
(2) The hearing requests must be submitted (postmarked or sent) by
March 19, 2008.
(3) The hearing requests must specify with particularity the
provision of the proposed rule to which each objection is taken and the
basis for the objection;
(4) Each hearing request must be separately stated and numbered;
and
(5) The hearing requests must be accompanied by a detailed summary
of the evidence proposed to be presented at the requested hearing.
List of Subjects
29 CFR Part 1910
Hazardous substances, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Vessels.
29 CFR Part 1915
Hazardous substances, Longshore and harbor workers, Occupational
safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and
Vessels.
XII. Authority and Signature
This document was prepared under the direction of Edwin G. Foulke,
Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210. It is issued under sections 4, 6 and 8 of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), section 941 of
the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 901 et
seq.), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), and 29 CFR
part 1911.
Signed at Washington, DC this 7th day of December, 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
XIII. The Proposed Standard
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, OSHA proposes to amend
29 CFR parts 1910 and 1915 as follows:
PART 1910--[AMENDED]
Part 1910 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulation is hereby
proposed to be amended as follows:
Subpart J--[Amended]
1. The authority citation for subpart J of 29 CFR part 1910 is
revised to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71
(36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR
9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008)
or 5-2007 (72 FR 31159) as applicable.
Section 1910.145 also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.
2. In Sec. 1910.145, paragraphs (a)(1) and (f)(1)(ii) are revised
to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.145 Specifications for accident prevention signs and tags.
(a) Scope. (1) These specifications apply to the design,
application, and use of signs or symbols (as included in paragraphs (c)
through (e) of this section) intended to indicate and, insofar as
possible, to define specific hazards of a nature such that failure to
designate them may lead to accidental injury to workers or the public,
or both, or to property damage. These specifications are intended to
cover all safety signs except those designed for streets, highways, and
railroads. These specifications do not apply to plant bulletin boards
or to safety posters.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) This paragraph (f) does not apply to construction or
agriculture.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 1910.147, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 1910.147 The control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout).
(a) Scope, application, and purpose--(1) Scope.
(i) This standard covers the servicing and maintenance of machines
and equipment in which the unexpected energization or start up of the
machines or equipment, or release of stored energy could cause injury
to employees. This standard establishes minimum performance
requirements for the control of such hazardous energy.
(ii) This standard does not cover the following:
(A) Construction and agriculture employment; and
(B) Employment covered by parts 1915, 1917, and 1918 of this title.
Note to paragraph (a)(1): Section 1910.147 applies to the
servicing of equipment onboard vessels that is used for inherently
general industry operations such as fish processing. However, if
such servicing is part of a general overhaul and repair of the
entire vessel, part 1915 applies.
* * * * *
Subpart N--[Amended]
4. The authority citation for subpart N of 29 CFR part 1910 is
revised to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71
(36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR
9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008)
or 5-2007 (72 FR 31159) as applicable.
Section 1910.177 also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.
5. In Sec. 1910.177, paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 1910.177 Servicing multi-piece and single piece rim wheels.
(a) * * *
(2) This section does not apply to employers and places of
employment regulated under the Longshoring Standards, 29 CFR part 1918,
Construction Safety Standards, 29 CFR part 1926; or Agriculture
Standards, 29 CFR part 1928.
* * * * *
PART 1915--[AMENDED]
6. The authority citation for part 1915 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation
Act (33 U.S.C. 941); secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order
No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90
(55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR
65008) or 5-2007 (72 FR 31159) as applicable; 29 CFR part 1911.
Subpart F--[Amended]
7. Subpart F of 29 CFR part 1915 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart F--General Working Conditions
Sec.
1915.80 Scope and application.
1915.81 Housekeeping.
1915.82 Lighting.
1915.83 Utilities.
1915.84 Work in confined or isolated spaces.
1915.85 Vessel radar and radio transmitters.
1915.86 Lifeboats.
1915.87 Medical services and first aid.
1915.88 Sanitation.
1915.89 Control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout).
1915.90 Safety color code for marking physical hazards.
1915.91 Accident prevention signs and tags.
1915.92 Retention of DOT markings, placards, and labels.
1915.93 Motor vehicle safety equipment, operation, and maintenance.
1915.94 Servicing multi-piece and single-piece rim wheels.
1915.95 Definitions.
Subpart F--General Working Conditions
Sec. 1915.80 Scope and application.
The provisions of this subpart apply to general working conditions
in shipyard employment, regardless of geographic location, including
work onboard vessels, vessel sections, and landside operations.
Sec. 1915.81 Housekeeping.
(a) The employer shall maintain good housekeeping conditions to
ensure that walking and working surfaces do not create a hazard for
employees. The employer shall ensure that these conditions are
maintained at all times.
(b) The employer shall ensure that walking and working surfaces
provide adequate space for work and passage.
(c) The employer shall ensure that only tools, materials, and
equipment necessary to perform the job in progress are kept on walking
and working surfaces. All other tools, materials, and equipment shall
be stored or located in an area that does not interfere with walking
and working surfaces.
(d) The employer shall ensure that the floor or deck of every work
area shall be maintained, so far as practicable, in a dry condition.
Where wet processes are used, drainage shall be maintained and the
employer shall provide false floors, platforms, mats or other dry
standing places. Where this is not practicable, the employer shall
provide appropriate waterproof footgear, such as rubber overboots, in
accordance with Sec. 1915.152.
(e) The employer shall ensure that walking and working surfaces are
kept clear of debris, including solid and liquid wastes, and other
objects that may create a safety or health hazard to employees, such as
protruding nails, splinters, loose boards, and unnecessary holes and
openings.
(f) The employer shall ensure that free access is maintained to
exits, firealarm boxes, fire call stations, and firefighting equipment.
(g) The employer shall ensure that slippery conditions, such as
snow and ice, on walking and working surfaces are eliminated as they
occur.
(h) The employer shall ensure that construction materials are
stacked in a manner that does not create a hazard to employees.
(i) The employer shall ensure that hoses and electrical service
cords are hung over or placed under walking and working surfaces or
covered by crossovers to prevent injury to employees and damage to the
hoses and cords.
(j) The employer shall ensure that flammable substances, such as
paint thinners, solvents, rags and waste, are stored in covered fire-
resistant containers when not in use.
(k) The employer shall ensure that combustible scrap is removed
from work areas as soon as possible.
Sec. 1915.82 Lighting.
(a) General Requirements. (1) The employer shall ensure that each
area of the workplace is illuminated to at least the intensities in
Table 1 whenever an employee is present. The requirement to provide
illumination in accordance with Table 1 applies to permanent and
temporary lighting.
Table 1 to Subpart F.--Minimum Lighting Intensities in Foot-Candles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lumens (foot-candles) Area or operation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3............................... General areas on vessels and vessel sections such as accessways, exits,
gangways, stairs, and walkways.
5............................... General landside areas such as corridors, exits, stairs, and walkways.
5............................... All assigned work areas on any vessel or vessel section. Landside tunnels,
shafts, vaults, pumping stations, and underground work areas.
10.............................. Landside work areas such as machine shops, electrical equipment rooms,
carpenter shops, lofts, tool rooms, warehouses, and outdoor work areas.
10.............................. Changing rooms, showers, sewered toilet facilities, and eating, drinking, and
break areas.
30.............................. First aid stations, infirmaries, and offices.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note to Table 1: The values in table 1 do not apply to emergency
or handheld portable lights.
(2) The employer shall ensure that matches and open flame devices
are not used for lighting.
(b) Temporary lights. The employer shall ensure that temporary
lights meet the following requirements:
(1) Lights with bulbs that are not completely recessed are equipped
with guards to prevent accidental contact;
(2) Lights are equipped with electric cords designed with
sufficient capacity to safely carry the electric load;
(3) Connections and insulation are maintained in a safe condition;
(4) Lights and lighting stringers are not suspended solely by their
electric cords unless they are designed by the manufacturer to be
suspended in this way;
(5) Lighting stringers do not overload branch circuits;
(6) Branch circuits are equipped with over-current protection whose
capacity does not exceed the rated current-carrying capacity of the
cord used;
(7) Splices have insulation with a capacity that exceeds that of
the cable; and
(8) Exposed, non-current-carrying metal parts of lights are
grounded. The employer shall ensure that grounding is provided either
through a third wire in the cable containing the circuit conductors or
through a separate wire that is grounded at the source of the current.
Grounding shall be done in accordance with the requirements of Sec.
1915.132(b).
(c) Handheld portable lights. (1) In any dark area that does not
have permanent or temporary lights, where lights are not working, or
are not readily accessible, the employer shall provide handheld
portable lights and ensure that employees do not enter those areas
without such lights.
(2) Where temporary lighting from sources outside the vessel or
vessel section is the only means of illumination, the employer shall
ensure that handheld portable lights are available in the immediate
work area to provide illumination so each employee is able to move
safely if the temporary lights fail.
(3) The employer shall ensure that only explosion-proof, self-
contained handheld portable lights are used in areas that are not gas-
free, or other electric equipment approved by a nationally recognized
testing laboratory (NRTL). Handheld portable lights bearing the
approval of a NRTL for the class and division of the location in which
they are used are considered to meet the requirements of this
paragraph.
Sec. 1915.83 Utilities.
(a) Steam supply system. The employer shall ensure that the
vessel's steam piping system, including hoses, has a safe working
pressure prior to supplying steam from an outside source. The employer
shall ensure that each steam supply system meets the following:
(1) A pressure gauge and a relief valve are installed at the point
where the temporary steam hose joins the vessel's steam piping system;
(2) Each relief valve is set and is capable of relieving steam at a
pressure that does not exceed the safe working pressure of the system
in its present condition;
(3) There are no means of disconnecting any relief valve from the
system that it protects;
(4) Each pressure gauge and relief valve is kept in legible
condition and located so it is visible and readily accessible; and
(5) The relief valve is positioned or placed in a location where it
is not likely to cause injury if it is activated.
(b) Steam hoses. The employer shall ensure that each steam hose
meets the following:
(1) The steam hose and its fittings have a safety factor of at
least five (5);
(2) The steam hose is hung with short bights to prevent chafing and
to reduce tension on the hose and its fittings;
(3) Each steam hose is protected from damage; and
(4) Each steam hose or temporary piping passing through a walking
or working area is shielded to protect employees from contact.
(c) Electric shore power. When a vessel is supplied with electric
shore power, the employer shall ensure the following precautions are
taken prior to energizing the vessel's circuits:
(1) The vessel is grounded if it is in dry dock;
(2) Circuits to be energized are in a safe condition; and
(3) Circuits to be energized are equipped with over-current
protection that does not exceed the rated current-carrying capacity of
the conductors.
(d) Heat lamps. The employer shall ensure that heat lamps,
including the face, are equipped with surround-type guards to prevent
contact with the lamp and bulb.
Sec. 1915.84 Work in confined or isolated spaces.
Except as provided in Sec. 1915.51(c)(3) of this part, whenever an
employee is working in a confined space or alone in an isolated
location, the employer shall ensure that each employee is:
(a) Checked frequently during each workshift to ensure the
employee's safety; and
(b) Accounted for at the end of each workshift.
Sec. 1915.85 Vessel radar and radio transmitters.
(a) The employer shall secure each radar and radio transmitter so
it is incapable of energizing or emitting radiation before any employee
begins to work on it or on a mast, king post, or other area near the
radar or radio transmitter.
(b) The employer shall ensure that hazardous energy is controlled
in accordance with Sec. 1915.89 Control of Hazardous Energy prior to
servicing, repairing or testing any vessel radar or radio transmitter.
(c) The employer shall schedule the testing of radar or radio
transmitter at a time when no work is in progress aloft or when
personnel can be cleared a minimum safe distance from the danger area.
The employer shall follow minimum safe distances established for the
type, model, and power of the equipment being tested.
Sec. 1915.86 Lifeboats.
(a) The employer shall ensure that before any employee works in or
on a lifeboat, either in a stowed or suspended position, that the
lifeboat is secured independently of the releasing gear to prevent it
from falling or capsizing.
(b) The employer shall not permit any employee to be in a lifeboat
while it is being hoisted.
(c) The employer shall not permit any employee to work on the
outboard side of a lifeboat that is stowed on chocks unless the
lifeboat is secured by gripes or another device that prevents it from
swinging outboard.
Sec. 1915.87 Medical services and first aid.
(a) General Requirement. The employer shall ensure that medical
services and first aid are readily accessible.
(b) Advice and consultation. The employer shall ensure that health
care professionals are readily available for advice and consultation on
matters of workplace health.
(c) First aid providers. (1) The employer shall ensure that there
are an adequate number of employees at each work location during each
workshift who are qualified to render first aid, including
cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The employer shall consider the
following factors in determining the number of employees who must have
first aid training: Size and location of each shipyard work location;
the number of employees at each work location; the nature of the
hazards present at each work location; and the distance of each work
location from hospitals, clinics, and rescue squads.
(2) The employer shall ensure that any employee designated to
provide first aid has a valid first aid certificate, such as is issued
by the Red Cross, American Heart Association, or other equivalent
organization.
(d) First aid supplies.(1) The employer shall provide and maintain
adequate first aid supplies at each work location.
(2) The employer shall ensure that the placement, content, and
amount of first aid supplies are adequate for the size and location of
each work location, the number of employees at each work location, the
nature of the hazards present at each work location, and the distance
of each work location from hospitals, clinics, and rescue squads.
(3) The employer shall inspect first aid supplies at intervals that
ensure supplies are in dry, sterile and serviceable condition.
(e) Quick drenching/flushing facilities. Where there is a
possibility that an employee could be injured if splashed with
hazardous or toxic substances, the employer shall provide facilities
for quick drenching or flushing the eyes and body. The employer shall
ensure that a facility is located within each work area for immediate
emergency use.
(f) Basket stretchers. (1) The employer shall ensure there are an
adequate number of basket stretchers, or the equivalent, readily
accessible where work is being performed onboard a vessel or vessel
section.
(2) The employer shall ensure each stretcher is equipped with:
(i) Permanent lifting bridles that enable the stretcher to be
attached to hoisting gear and that are capable of lifting at least
5,000 pounds (2,270 kg);
(ii) Restraints that are capable of securely holding the injured
employee while the stretcher is lifted or moved; and
(iii) A blanket or other suitable covering for the injured
employee.
(3) The employer shall store stretchers in a clearly-marked
location in a manner that prevents damage and protects them from
environmental conditions.
(4) The employer shall inspect stretchers at intervals that ensure
they remain in a safe and serviceable condition.
Appendix A to Sec. 1915.87--First Aid Kits (Non-Mandatory)
1. First aid supplies are required to be adequate and readily
accessible under paragraphs Sec. 1915.88(a) and (d). An example of
the minimal contents of a generic first aid kit for workplace
settings is described in American National Standard (ANSI) Z308.1-
2003 "Minimum Requirements for Workplace First Aid Kits." The
contents of the kit listed in the ANSI standard should be adequate
for small work locations. When larger operations or multiple
operations are being conducted at the same location, employers
should determine the need for additional first aid kits at the work
location, additional types of first aid equipment and supplies, and
additional quantities and types of supplies and equipment in the
first aid kits.
2. In a similar fashion, employers who have unique or changing
first aid needs in their workplace may need to enhance their first
aid kits. The employer can use the OSHA 300 Log, OSHA 301's or other
reports to identify these unique problems. Consultation from the
local fire/rescue department, appropriate healthcare professional,
or local emergency room may be helpful to employers in these
circumstances. By assessing the specific needs of their workplace,
employers can ensure that reasonably anticipated supplies are
available. Employers should assess the specific needs of their
worksite periodically and augment first aid kits appropriately.
3. If it is reasonably anticipated that employees will be
exposed to blood or other potentially infectious materials while
using first aid supplies, employers are required to provide
appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) in compliance with
the provisions of the Occupational Exposure to Bloodborne Pathogens
standard, Sec. 1910.1030(d)(3) (56 FR 64175). This standard lists
appropriate PPE for this type of exposure, such as gloves, gowns,
face shields, masks, and eye protection.
Sec. 1915.88 Sanitation
(a) General Requirements. (1) The employer shall provide adequate
and readily accessible sanitation facilities.
(2) The employer shall supply and maintain each sanitation facility
in a clean, sanitary, and serviceable condition.
(b) Potable water. (1) The employer shall provide potable water for
all employee health and personal needs and ensure that only potable
water is used for these purposes.
(2) The employer shall provide potable drinking water in amounts
that are adequate to meet the health and personal needs of each
employee.
(3) The employer shall dispense drinking water from a fountain, a
covered container with single-use drinking cups stored in a sanitary
receptacle, or single-use bottles. The employer shall prohibit the use
of shared drinking cups, dippers, and water bottles.
(c) Non-potable water. (1) The employer may use non-potable water
for other purposes such as firefighting and cleaning outdoor premises
so long as it does not contain chemicals, fecal matter, coliform or
other substances at levels that may create a hazard for employees.
(2) The employer shall clearly mark non-potable water supplies and
outlets as "not safe for health or personal use."
(d) Toilet facilities--(1) General requirements. The employer shall
ensure that sewered and portable toilet facilities:
(i) Are separate for each sex, except as provided in paragraph
(d)(1)(i)(B) of this section;
(A) The number of toilet facilities provided for each sex shall be
based on the maximum number of employees of that sex present at the
workplace at any one time during a workshift. A single occupancy toilet
room shall be counted as one toilet regardless of the number of toilets
it contains;
(B) The employer does not have to provide separate toilet
facilities for each sex where they will not be occupied by more than
one employee at a time, can be locked from the inside, and contain at
least one toilet; and
(ii) Ensure privacy at all times. Where a toilet room contains more
than one toilet, each toilet shall occupy a separate compartment with a
door and walls or partitions between them that are sufficiently high to
ensure privacy.
(2) Sewered toilet facilities. The employer shall provide at least
the following number of sewered toilet facilities for each sex.
Table 2 to Subpart F
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum number of toilet
Number of employees of each sex facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 to 15................................... 1
16 to 35.................................. 2
36 to 55.................................. 3
56 to 80.................................. 4
81 to 110................................. 5
111 to 150................................ 6
Over 150.................................. 1 additional toilet facility
for each additional 40
employees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note to Table 2. Where toilet facilities will only be used by
men, urinals may be provided instead of toilet facilities, except
that the number of toilets in such cases shall not be reduced to
less than \2/3\rds of the minimum specified.
(3) Portable toilet facilities. In addition to the required number
of sewered toilet facilities, the employer may also provide portable
toilet facilities. The employer shall ensure that each portable toilet
facility is maintained in a clean, sanitary and serviceable condition,
equipped with adequate venting and, as necessary, lighting and heating.
(4) Exception for normally unattended work locations. The
requirement to provide toilet facilities does not apply to normally
unattended work locations and mobile work crews, provided that the
employer ensures that employees have immediately available
transportation to readily accessible sanitation facilities that are
maintained in a clean, sanitary and serviceable condition and meet the
requirements of this section.
(e) Handwashing facilities. (1) The employer shall provide
handwashing facilities at or adjacent to each toilet facility.
(2) The employer shall ensure that each handwashing facility:
(i) Is equipped with either hot and cold or lukewarm running water
and soap, or with waterless skin cleansing agents that are capable of
disinfecting the skin or neutralizing the contaminants to which the
employee may be exposed; and
(ii) If the facility uses soap and water, it is supplied with
clean, single-use hand towels stored in a sanitary container and a
sanitary means for disposing of them, clean individual sections of
continuous cloth toweling, or an air blower.
(3) Exception for normally unattended work locations. The
requirement to provide handwashing facilities does not apply to
normally unattended work locations and mobile work crews, provided that
the employer ensures that employees have immediately available
transportation to readily accessible sanitation facilities that are
maintained in a clean, sanitary and serviceable condition and meet the
requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(2) of this section.
(4) The employer shall inform each employee engaged in the
application of paints or coatings or in other operations where
hazardous or toxic substances can be ingested or absorbed about the
need for removing surface contaminants by thorough washing of hands and
face at the end of the workshift and prior to eating, drinking, or
smoking.
(f) Showers. (1) When showers are required by an OSHA standard, the
employer shall provide one shower for each 10, or fraction of 10
employees of each sex, who are required to shower during the same
workshift.
(2) The employer shall ensure that each shower is equipped with
soap, hot and cold water, and clean towels for each employee who uses
the shower.
(g) Changing rooms. When an employer provides protective clothing
to prevent employee exposure to hazardous or toxic substances, the
employer shall provide the following:
(1) Changing rooms that provide privacy for each sex; and
(2) Storage facilities for street clothes and separate storage
facilities for protective clothing.
(h) Eating, drinking and break areas. The employer shall ensure
that food, beverages and tobacco products are not consumed or stored in
any area where hazardous or toxic substances may be present.
(i) Waste disposal. (1) The employer shall provide waste
receptacles that meet the following requirements:
(i) Each receptacle is constructed of materials that are corrosion
resistant, leak-proof and easily cleaned or disposable;
(ii) Each receptacle is equipped with a solid tight-fitting cover,
unless it can be kept in clean, sanitary and serviceable condition
without the use of a cover;
(iii) Receptacles are provided in numbers, sizes and locations that
encourage their use; and
(iv) Each receptacle is emptied as often as necessary to prevent it
from overfilling and in a manner that does not create a hazard for
employees. Waste receptacles for food shall be emptied at least every
day, unless unused.
(2) The employer shall not permit employees to work in the
immediate vicinity of uncovered garbage that could endanger their
safety and health.
(3) The employer shall ensure that employees working beneath or on
the outboard side of a vessel are not contaminated by drainage or waste
from overboard discharges.
(j) Vermin control. (1) To the extent reasonably practicable, the
employer shall clean and maintain the workplace in a manner that
prevents the harborage of vermin such as rodents, insects and birds.
(2) Where vermin are detected, the employer shall implement and
maintain an effective control program.
Sec. 1915.89 Control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout).
(a) Scope, application and purpose--(1) Scope. This standard covers
the servicing and maintenance of machines, equipment and systems in
which the energization or start up of the machines, equipment, systems,
or release of stored energy, could cause injury to employees. This
standard establishes minimum performance requirements for the control
of such hazardous energy.
(2) Application. (i) This standard applies to the control of
hazardous energy during servicing and maintenance of machines,
equipment and systems, including those onboard vessels and vessel
sections, including:
(A) Servicing of ship's systems by any employee, including, but not
limited to, ship's officers or crew of the vessel; and
(B) Servicing of machines, equipment and systems that employees use
in the course of shipyard employment.
(ii) Normal production operations are not covered by this standard
(See subpart O of 29 CFR part 1910 and subpart H of this part for
machine guarding). Servicing and/or maintenance which takes place
during normal production operations is covered by this standard only
if:
(A) An employee is required to remove or bypass a guard or other
safety device; or
(B) An employee is required to place any part of his or her body
into an area on a machine, piece of equipment or system where work is
actually performed upon the material being processed (point of
operation) or where an associated danger zone exists during an
operating cycle.
Note to paragraph (a)(2(ii): Exception. Minor tool changes and
adjustments, and other minor servicing activities, which take
place during normal production operations, are not covered by this
standard if they are routine, repetitive, and integral to the use of
the machine, equipment or system for production, provided that the
work is performed using alternative measures which provide effective
protection (See subpart O of 29 CFR part 1910).
(iii) This standard does not apply to the following:
(A) Work on cord and plug connected electric machines or equipment
provided that energization or start up is controlled by the unplugging
of the machines or equipment from the energy source and by the plug
being under the exclusive control of the employee performing the
servicing or maintenance;
(B) Hot tap operations involving transmission and distribution
systems for substances such as gas, steam, water or petroleum products
when they are performed on pressurized pipelines, provided that the
employer demonstrates that continuity of service is essential; shutdown
is impractical; and documented procedures are followed, and special
equipment is used that will provide proven effective protection for
employees; and
(C) The servicing and maintenance of machines, equipment and
systems onboard vessels that are used for inherently general industry
operations such as fish processing.
(3) Purpose. (i) This section requires employers to establish a
program and utilize procedures for affixing appropriate lockout devices
or tagout devices to energy isolating devices and to otherwise disable
machines, equipment or systems to prevent energization, start up or
release of stored energy in order to prevent injury to employees.
(ii) When other standards in this part or applicable standards in
part 1910 require the use of lockout or tagout, they shall be used and
supplemented by the procedural and training requirements of this
section.
(b) General--(1) Energy control program. The employer shall
establish a program consisting of energy control procedures, employee
training and periodic inspections to ensure that before any employee
performs any servicing or maintenance where the energizing, startup or
release of stored energy could occur and cause injury, the machine,
equipment or system shall be isolated from the energy source and
rendered inoperative.
(2) Lockout/tagout. (i) If an energy isolating device is not
capable of being locked out, the employer's energy control program
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall utilize a tagout system.
(ii) If an energy isolating device is capable of being locked out,
the employer's energy control program under paragraph (b)(1) of this
section shall utilize lockout, unless the employer can demonstrate that
the utilization of a tagout system will provide full employee
protection as set forth in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(iii) After [Insert Date 90 Days After Publication of a Final Rule
in the Federal Register], whenever replacement or major repair,
renovation or modification of a machine, equipment or system is
performed, and whenever a new machine, equipment or system is
installed, the employer shall ensure that energy isolating devices for
the machine, equipment or system are designed to accept a lockout
device. This requirement does not apply to a machine, equipment or
system that is part of a vessel or vessel section the shipyard employer
does not own.
(3) Full employee protection. (i) When a tagout device is used on
an energy isolating device that is capable of being locked out, the
tagout device shall be attached at the same location that the lockout
device would have been attached, and the employer shall demonstrate
that the tagout program will provide a level of safety equivalent to
that obtained by using a lockout program.
(ii) In demonstrating that a level of safety is achieved in the
tagout program that is equivalent to the level of safety obtained by
using a lockout program, the employer shall demonstrate full compliance
with all tagout-related provisions of this standard together with such
additional elements as are necessary to provide the equivalent safety
available from the use of a lockout device. Additional means to be
considered as part of the demonstration of full employee protection
shall include the implementation of additional safety measures, such as
the removal of an isolating circuit element, blocking of a controlling
switch, opening of an extra disconnecting device, or the removal of a
valve handle to reduce the likelihood of inadvertent energization.
(4) Energy control procedures. (i) Procedures shall be developed,
documented and utilized for the control of potentially hazardous energy
when employees are engaged in the activities covered by this section.
Note to paragraph (b)(4)(i): Exception. The employer need not
document the required procedure for a particular machine, equipment
or system when all of the following elements exist: (1) The machine,
equipment or system has no potential for stored or residual energy
or reaccumulation of stored energy after shut down that could
endanger employees; (2) the machine, equipment or system has a
single energy source which can be readily identified and isolated;
(3) the isolation and locking out of that energy source will
completely deenergize and deactivate the machine, equipment or
system; (4) the machine, equipment or system is isolated from that
energy source and locked out during servicing or maintenance; (5) a
single lockout device will achieve a locked-out condition; (6) the
lockout device is under the exclusive control of the authorized
employee performing the servicing or maintenance; (7) the servicing
or maintenance does not create hazards for other employees; and (8)
the employer, in utilizing this exception, has had no accidents
involving the activation or reenergization of the machine, equipment
or system during servicing or maintenance.
(ii) Each procedure shall clearly and specifically outline the
scope, purpose, authorization, rules and techniques to be utilized for
the control of hazardous energy and the means to enforce compliance
including, but not limited to, the following:
(A) A specific statement of the intended use of the procedure;
(B) Specific procedural steps for shutting down, isolating,
blocking and securing machines, equipment or systems to control
hazardous energy;
(C) Specific procedural steps for the placement, removal and
transfer of lockout devices or tagout devices and the responsibility
for them; and
(D) Specific requirements for testing a machine, equipment or
system to determine and verify the effectiveness of lockout devices,
tagout devices and other energy control measures.
(5) Protective materials and hardware. (i) Locks, tags, chains,
wedges, key blocks, adapter pins, self-locking fasteners, or other
hardware shall be provided by the employer for isolating, securing or
blocking of machines, equipment or systems from energy sources.
(ii) Lockout devices and tagout devices shall be singularly
identified; shall be the only devices(s) used for controlling energy;
shall not be used for other purposes; and shall meet the following
requirements:
(A) Durable. (1) Lockout and tagout devices shall be capable of
withstanding the environment to which they are exposed for the maximum
period of time that exposure is expected.
(2) Tagout devices shall be constructed and printed so that
exposure to weather conditions or wet and damp locations will not cause
the tag to deteriorate or the message on the tag to become illegible.
(3) Tags shall not deteriorate when used in corrosive environments
such as areas where acid and alkali chemicals are handled and stored.
(B) Standardized. Lockout and tagout devices shall be standardized
within the facility in at least one of the following criteria: Color;
shape; or size; and additionally, in the case of tagout devices, print
and format shall be standardized.
(C) Substantial--(1) Lockout devices. Lockout devices shall be
substantial enough to prevent removal without the use of excessive
force or unusual techniques, such as with the use of bolt cutters or
other metal cutting tools.
(2) Tagout devices. Tagout devices, including their means of
attachment, shall be substantial enough to prevent inadvertent or
accidental removal. Tagout device attachment means shall be of a non-
reusable type, attachable by hand, self-locking and non-releasable with
a minimum unlocking strength of no less than 50 pounds and having the
general design and basic characteristics of being at least equivalent
to a one-piece, all environment-tolerant nylon cable tie.
(D) Identifiable. Lockout devices and tagout devices shall indicate
the identity of the employee applying the device(s).
(iii) Tagout devices shall warn against hazardous conditions if the
machine, equipment or system is energized and shall include a legend
such as the following: Do Not Start; Do Not Open; Do Not Close; Do Not
Energize; Do Not Operate.
(6) Periodic Inspection. (i) The employer shall conduct a periodic
inspection of each energy control procedure at least annually to ensure
that the procedures and the requirements of this standard are being
followed and to correct any deficiencies.
(A) The periodic inspection shall be performed by an authorized
employee other than the employees(s) utilizing the energy control
procedure being inspected.
(B) Where lockout is used for energy control, the periodic
inspection shall include a review between the inspector and each
authorized employee of that employee's responsibilities under the
energy control procedure being inspected.
(C) Where tagout is used for energy control, the periodic
inspection shall include a review between the inspector and each
authorized and affected employee of that employee's responsibilities
under the energy control procedure being inspected and the elements set
forth in paragraph (b)(7)(ii) of this section.
(ii) The employer shall certify that the periodic inspections have
been performed. The certification shall identify the machine, equipment
or system on which the energy control procedure was being utilized, the
date of the inspection, the employees included in the inspection and
the person performing the inspection.
(7) Training and communication. (i) General. The employer shall
provide training to ensure that the purpose and function of the energy
control program are understood by employees and that the knowledge and
skills required for the safe application, usage and removal of the
energy controls are acquired by employees. The training shall include
the following:
(A) Each authorized employee shall receive training in the
recognition of applicable hazardous energy sources, the type and
magnitude of the energy available in the workplace and the methods and
means necessary for energy isolation and control.
(B) Each affected employee shall be instructed in the purpose and
use of the energy control procedure.
(C) Each affected employee and all other employees whose work
operations are or may be in an area where energy control procedures may
be utilized shall be instructed about the procedure and about the
prohibition relating to attempts to restart or reenergize machines,
equipment or system which are locked out or tagged out.
(ii) Tagout System Training. When tagout systems are used,
employees shall also be trained in the following limitations of tags:
(A) Tags are essentially warning devices affixed to energy
isolating devices and do not provide the physical restraint on those
devices that is provided by a lock;
(B) When a tag is attached to an energy isolating means, it is not
to be removed without authorization of the authorized person
responsible for it and it is never to be bypassed, ignored, or
otherwise defeated;
(C) Tags must be legible and understandable by all authorized
employees, affected employees and all other employees whose work
operations are or may be in the area;
(D) Tags and their means of attachment must be made of materials
which will withstand the environmental conditions encountered in the
workplace;
(E) Tags may evoke a false sense of security and their meaning
needs to be understood as part of the overall energy control program;
and
(F) Tags must be securely attached to energy isolating devices so
that they cannot be inadvertently or accidentally detached during use.
(iii) Employee retraining. (A) Retraining shall be provided for all
authorized and affected employees whenever there is a change in their
job assignments; a change in machines, equipment, systems or processes
that present a new hazard; or when there is a change in the energy
control procedures.
(B) Additional retraining shall also be conducted whenever a
periodic inspection under paragraph (b)(6) of this section reveals, or
whenever the employer has reason to believe, that there are deviations
from or inadequacies in the employee's knowledge or use of the energy
control procedures.
(C) The retraining shall reestablish employee proficiency and
introduce new or revised control methods and procedures, as necessary.
(iv) Certification. The employer shall certify that employee
training has been accomplished and is being kept up to date. The
certification shall contain each employee's name and dates of training.
(8) Energy isolation. Lockout or tagout shall be performed only by
the authorized employees who are performing the servicing or
maintenance.
(9) Notification of employees. Affected employees shall be notified
by the employer or authorized employee of the application and removal
of lockout devices or tagout devices. Notification shall be given
before the controls are applied and after they are removed from the
machine, equipment or system.
(c) Application of control. The established procedures for the
application of energy control (the lockout or tagout procedures) shall
cover the following elements and actions and shall be done in the
following sequence:
(1) Preparation for shutdown. Before an authorized or affected
employee turns off a machine, equipment or system, the authorized
employee shall have knowledge of the type and magnitude of the energy,
the hazards of the energy to be controlled and the method or means to
control the energy.
(2) Machine, equipment or system shutdown. The machine, equipment
or system shall be turned off or shut down using the procedures
established for the machine, equipment or system. An orderly shutdown
must be utilized to avoid any additional or increased hazard(s) to
employees as a result of the equipment stoppage.
(3) Machine, equipment or system isolation. All energy isolating
devices that are needed to control the energy to the machine, equipment or
system shall be physically located and operated in such a manner as to
isolate the machine, equipment or system from the energy source(s).
(4) Lockout or tagout device application. (i) Lockout or tagout
devices shall be affixed to each energy isolating device by authorized
employees.
(ii) Lockout devices, where used, shall be affixed in a manner that
will hold the energy isolating devices in a "safe" or "off"
position.
(iii) Tagout devices, where used, shall be affixed in such a manner
as will clearly indicate that the operation or movement of energy
isolating devices from the "safe" or "off" position is prohibited.
(A) Where tagout devices are used with energy isolating devices
designed with the capability of being locked, the tag attachment shall
be fastened at the same point at which the lock would have been
attached.
(B) Where a tag cannot be affixed directly to the energy isolating
device, the tag shall be located as close as safely possible to the
device, in a position that will be immediately obvious to anyone
attempting to operate the device.
(5) Stored energy. (i) Following the application of lockout or
tagout devices to energy isolating devices, all potentially hazardous
stored or residual energy shall be relieved, disconnected, restrained
and otherwise rendered safe.
(ii) If there is a possibility of reaccumulation of stored energy
to a hazardous level, verification of isolation shall be continued
until the servicing or maintenance is completed, or until the
possibility of such accumulation no longer exists.
(6) Verification of isolation. Prior to starting work on machines,
equipment or system that have been locked out or tagged out, the
authorized employee shall verify that isolation and deenergization of
the machine, equipment or system have been accomplished.
(d) Release from lockout or tagout. Before lockout or tagout
devices are removed and energy is restored to the machine, equipment or
system, procedures shall be followed and actions taken by the
authorized employee(s) to ensure the following:
(1) The machine, equipment or system. The work area shall be
inspected to ensure that nonessential items have been removed and to
ensure that machine, equipment or system components are operationally
intact.
(2) Employees. (i) The work area shall be checked to ensure that
all employees have been safely positioned or removed.
(ii) After lockout or tagout devices have been removed and before a
machine, equipment or system is started, affected employees shall be
notified that the lockout or tagout device(s) have been removed.
(3) Lockout or tagout devices removal. Each lockout or tagout
device shall be removed from each energy isolating device by the
employee who applied the device.
Note to paragraph (d)(3): Exception. When the authorized
employee who applied the lockout or tagout device is not available
to remove it, that device may be removed under the direction of the
employer, provided that specific procedures and training for such
removal have been developed, documented and incorporated into the
employer's energy control program. The employer shall demonstrate
that the specific procedure provides equivalent safety to the
removal of the device by the authorized employee who applied it. The
specific procedure shall include at least the following elements:
(i) Verification by the employer that the authorized employee
who applied the device is not at the facility;
(ii) Making all reasonable efforts to contact the authorized
employee to inform he or she that his or her lockout or tagout
device has been removed; and
(iii) Ensuring that the authorized employee has this knowledge
before he/she resumes work at that facility.
(e) Additional requirements--(1) Testing or positioning of
machines, equipment, systems, or their components. In situations in
which lockout or tagout devices must be temporarily removed from the
energy isolating device and the machine, equipment or system energized
to test or position it, the following sequence of actions shall be
followed:
(i) Clear the machine, equipment, or system of tools and materials
in accordance with paragraph (d)(1) of this section;
(ii) Remove employees from the machine, equipment or system area in
accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of this section;
(iii) Remove the lockout or tagout devices as specified in
paragraph (d)(3) of this section;
(iv) Energize and proceed with testing or positioning; and
(v) Deenergize all systems and reapply energy control measures in
accordance with paragraph (c) of this section to continue the servicing
and/or maintenance.
(2) Outside personnel (contractors, ship's crew, etc.). (i)
Whenever outside servicing personnel such as contractors or ship's crew
are to be engaged in activities covered by the scope and application of
this standard, the on-site employer and the outside employer shall
inform each other of their respective lockout or tagout procedures.
(ii) The on-site employer shall ensure that his/her employees
understand and comply with the restrictions and prohibitions of the
outside employer's energy control program.
(3) Group lockout or tagout. (i) When servicing and/or maintenance
is performed by a crew, craft, department or other group, they shall
utilize a procedure which affords the employees a level of protection
equivalent to that provided by the implementation of a personal lockout
or tagout device.
(ii) Group lockout or tagout devices shall be used in accordance
with the procedures required by paragraph (b)(4) of this section
including, but not necessarily limited to, the following specific
requirements:
(A) Primary responsibility is vested in an authorized employee for
a set number of employees working under the protection of a group
lockout or tagout device (such as an operations lock);
(B) Provision for the authorized employee to ascertain the exposure
status of individual group members with regard to the lockout or tagout
of the machine, equipment or system;
(C) When more than one crew, craft, department, etc., is involved,
assignment of overall job-associated lockout or tagout control
responsibility to an authorized employee designated to coordinate
affected work forces and ensure continuity of protection; and
(D) Each authorized employee shall affix a personal lockout or
tagout device to the group lockout device, group lockbox, or comparable
mechanism when he or she begins work and shall remove those devices
when he or she stops working on the machine, equipment or system being
serviced or maintained.
(4) Shift or personnel changes. Specific procedures shall be
utilized during shift or personnel changes to ensure the continuity of
lockout or tagout protection, including provision for the orderly
transfer of lockout or tagout device protection between off-going and
oncoming employees, to minimize exposure to hazards from the
energization or start-up of the machine, equipment or system, or the
release of stored energy.
Note to Sec. 1915.89: The following appendix A to Sec. 1915.89
serves as a non-mandatory guideline to assist employers and
employees in complying with the requirements of this section, as
well as to provide other helpful information. Nothing in the
appendix adds to or detracts from any of the requirements of this section.
Appendix A to Sec. 1915.89, Typical Minimal Lockout Procedures
General
Lockout Procedure
Lockout Procedure for
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Name of Company for single procedure or identification of
machine, equipment or system, if multiple procedures are used).
Purpose
This procedure establishes the minimum requirements for the
lockout of energy isolating devices whenever maintenance or
servicing is done on machines, equipment or systems. It shall be
used to ensure that the machine, equipment or system is stopped,
isolated from all potentially hazardous energy sources and locked
out before employees perform any servicing or maintenance where the
energization or start-up of the machine, equipment or system or
release of stored energy could cause injury.
Compliance With This Program
All employees are required to comply with the restrictions and
limitations imposed upon them during the use of lockout. The
authorized employees are required to perform the lockout in
accordance with this procedure. All employees, upon observing a
machine, equipment, or system that is locked out to perform
servicing or maintenance shall not attempt to start, energize, or
use that machine, equipment or system.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of compliance enforcement to be taken for violation of the
above.
Sequence of Lockout
(1) Notify all affected employees that servicing or maintenance
is required on a machine, equipment or system and that it must be
shut down and locked out to perform the servicing or maintenance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Name(s)/Job Title(s) of affected employees and how to notify.
(2) The authorized employee shall refer to the company procedure
to identify the type and magnitude of the energy that the machine,
equipment or system utilizes, shall understand the hazards of the
energy and shall know the methods to control the energy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Type(s) and magnitude(s) of energy, its hazards and the methods
to control the energy.
(3) If the machine, equipment or system is operating, shut it
down by the normal stopping procedure (depress the stop button, open
switch, close valve, etc.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Type(s) and location(s) of machine, equipment or system
operating controls.
(4) De-activate the energy isolating device(s) so that the
machine, equipment or system is isolated from the energy source(s).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Type(s) and location(s) of energy isolating devices.
(5) Lock out the energy isolating device(s) with assigned
individual lock(s).
(6) Stored or residual energy (such as that in capacitors,
springs, elevated machine members, rotating flywheels, hydraulic
systems and air, gas, steam, or water pressure, etc.) must be
dissipated or restrained by methods such as grounding,
repositioning, blocking, bleeding down, etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Type(s) of stored energy--methods to dissipate or restrain.
(7) Ensure that the machine, equipment or system is disconnected
from the energy source(s) by first checking that no personnel are
exposed, then verify the isolation of the machine, equipment or
system by operating the push button or other normal operating
control(s) or by testing to make certain it will not operate.
CAUTION: Return operating control(s) to neutral or "off"
position after verifying the isolation of the machine, equipment or
system.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Method of verifying the isolation of the machine, equipment or
system.
(8) The machine, equipment or system is now locked out.
Restoring Machine, Equipment or System to Service. When the
servicing or maintenance is completed and the machine, equipment or
system is ready to return to normal operating condition, the
following steps shall be taken.
(1) Check the machine, equipment or system and the immediate
area around the machine to ensure that nonessential items have been
removed and that the machine, equipment or system components are
operationally intact.
(2) Check the work area to ensure that all employees have been
safely positioned or removed from the area.
(3) Verify that the controls are in neutral.
(4) Remove the lockout devices and reenergize the machine,
equipment or system.
Note: The removal of some forms of blocking may require
reenergization of the machine, equipment or system before safe
removal.
(5) Notify affected employees that the servicing or maintenance
is completed and the machine, equipment or system is ready for use.
Sec. 1915.90 Safety color code for marking physical hazards.
The requirements applicable to shipyard employment under this
section are identical to those set forth at Sec. 1910.144 of this
chapter.
Sec. 1915.91 Accident prevention signs and tags.
The requirements applicable to shipyard employment under this
section are identical to those set forth at Sec. 1910.145 of this
chapter.
Sec. 1915.92 Retention of DOT markings, placards and labels.
(a) Any employer who receives a package of hazardous material that
is required to be marked, labeled, or placarded in accordance with the
U.S. Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations shall
retain those markings, labels and placards on the package until the
packaging is sufficiently cleaned of residue and purged of vapors to
remove any potential hazards.
(b) Any employer who receives a freight container, rail freight
car, motor vehicle, or transport vehicle that is required to be marked
or placarded in accordance with the U.S. Department of Transportation
Hazardous Materials Regulations shall retain those markings and
placards on the freight container, rail freight car, motor vehicle, or
transport vehicle until the hazardous materials are sufficiently
removed to prevent any potential hazards.
(c) The employer shall maintain markings, placards and labels in a
manner that ensures that they are readily visible.
(d) For non-bulk packages that will not be reshipped, the
requirements of this section are met if a label or other acceptable
marking is affixed in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1200 Hazard
Communication.
(e) For the purposes of this section, the term "hazardous
material" and any other terms not defined in this section have the
same definition as in the U.S. Department of Transportation Hazardous
Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 171 through 180).
Sec. 1915.93 Motor vehicle safety equipment, operation and
maintenance.
(a) Application. (1) This section applies to any vehicle used to
transport employees, materials, or property at shipyards. This section
does not apply to motor vehicle operation on public streets and
highways.
(2) The requirements of this section apply to employer provided
motor vehicles. The requirements of paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(4) and
(c)(2) of this section also apply to employee provided motor vehicles.
(3) Only the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) apply
to powered industrial trucks, as defined in Sec. 1910.178. The
maintenance, inspection, operation and training requirements in 29 CFR
1910.178 continue to apply to powered industrial trucks used for
shipyard employment.
(b) Motor vehicle safety equipment. (1) The employer shall ensure
that each motor vehicle acquired or initially used after February 19,
2008 is equipped with a safety belt for each employee operating or riding
in the motor vehicle. This requirement does not apply to any motor vehicle
that was not equipped with safety belts at the time of manufacture.
(2) The employer shall ensure that each employee uses the safety
belt, securely and tightly fastened, at all times while operating or
riding in a motor vehicle.
(3) The employer shall ensure that vehicle safety equipment is not
removed from any employer-provided vehicle. The employer shall replace
safety equipment that is removed.
(4) The employer shall ensure that each motor vehicle used to
transport an employee has firmly secured seats that are adequate for
each employee being transported and shall ensure that all employees who
are being transported are using seats.
(c) Motor vehicle maintenance and operation. (1) The employer shall
ensure that each motor vehicle is maintained in a serviceable and safe
operating condition and removed from service if it is not in such
condition.
(2) The employer shall ensure that before a motor vehicle is
operated, any tools and materials being transported are secured if
their movements may create a hazard for employees.
(3) The employer shall implement measures to ensure that motor
vehicle operators are able to see and avoid injuring pedestrians and
bicyclists at shipyards. Measures that employers may implement to
comply with this requirement include:
(i) Establishing dedicated travel lanes for motor vehicles,
bicyclists and pedestrians;
(ii) Installing crosswalks and traffic control devices such as stop
signs or physical barriers to separate travel lanes;
(iii) Providing reflective vests or other gear so pedestrians and
bicyclists are clearly visible to motor vehicle operators; and
(iv) Ensuring that bicycles have reflectors, lights or other
equipment to maximize visibility of the bicyclist.
Sec. 1915.94 Servicing multi-piece and single piece rim wheels.
The requirements applicable to shipyard employment under this
section are identical to those set forth at 29 CFR 1910.177.
Sec. 1915.95 Definitions.
The following definitions are applicable to this subpart:
Affected employee. An employee whose job requires operation or use
of a machine, equipment or system on which servicing or maintenance is
being performed under lockout or tagout, or whose job requires work in
an area in which such servicing or maintenance is being performed.
Authorized employee. A person who locks out or tags out machines,
equipment, or systems in order to perform servicing or maintenance. An
affected employee becomes an authorized employee when that employee's
duties include performing servicing or maintenance covered under this
section.
Capable of being locked out. An energy isolating device is capable
of being locked out if it has a hasp or other means of attachment to
which, or through which, a lock can be affixed, or it has a locking
mechanism built into it. Other energy isolating devices are capable of
being locked out, if lockout can be achieved without the need to
dismantle, rebuild, or replace the energy isolating device or
permanently alter its energy control capability.
Energized. Connected to an energy source or containing residual or
stored energy.
Energy isolating device. A mechanical device that physically
prevents the transmission or release of energy, including but not
limited to the following: manually operated electrical circuit breaker;
a disconnect switch; a manually operated switch by which the conductors
of a circuit can be disconnected from all ungrounded supply conductors
and, in addition, no pole can be operated independently; a line valve;
a block; and any similar device used to block or isolate energy. Push
buttons, selector switches and other control circuit type devices are
not energy isolating devices.
Energy source. Any source of electrical, mechanical, hydraulic,
pneumatic, chemical, thermal, or other energy.
Hazardous or toxic substances. Hazardous or toxic substances mean:
(1) Any substance regulated by subpart Z of part 1915;
(2) Any material listed in the U.S. Depart of Transportation
Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 171 through 180);
(3) Any atmosphere with an oxygen content of less than 19.5%;
(4) Any corrosive substance; or
(5) Any environmental contaminant that may expose employees to
injury, illness or disease.
Health care professional. A physician or any other health care
provider whose legally permitted scope of practice allows the provider
to independently provide or be delegated the responsibility to provide
some or all of the advice or consultation this subpart requires.
Hot tap. A procedure used in the repair, maintenance and services
activities which involves welding on a piece of equipment (pipelines,
vessels or tanks) under pressure, in order to install connections or
appurtenances. It is commonly used to replace or add sections of
pipeline without the interruption of service for air, gas, water, steam
and petrochemical distribution systems.
Lockout. The placement of a lockout device on an energy isolating
device, in accordance with an established procedure, ensuring that the
energy isolating device and the equipment being controlled cannot be
operated until the lockout device is removed.
Lockout device. A device that utilizes a positive means such as a
lock, either key or combination type, to hold an energy isolating
device in the safe position and prevent energization or startup.
Included are blank flanges and bolted slip blinds.
Motor vehicle. Any motor-driven vehicle operated by an employee
that is used to transport employees, material, or property. For the
purposes of this subpart, motor vehicles include passenger cars, light
trucks, vans, motorcycles, all-terrain-vehicles, powered industrial
trucks and other similar vehicles. Motor vehicle does not include boats
or vehicles operated exclusively on a rail or rails.
Normal production operations. The utilization of a machine,
equipment or system to perform its intended production function.
Portable toilet facility. A non-sewered facility for collecting and
containing urine and feces. A portable toilet facility may be either
flushable or non-flushable. For purposes of this section, portable
toilet facilities do not include privies.
Potable water. Water that meets the standards for drinking purposes
of the state or local authority having jurisdiction, or water that
meets the quality standards prescribed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's National Primary Water Regulations (40 CFR part
141).
Sanitation facilities. Facilities, including supplies, maintained
for employee personal and health needs such as potable drinking water,
toilet facilities, handwashing and drying facilities, showers
(including quick drenching/flushing) and changing rooms, food
preparation and eating areas, first aid stations and on-site medical
service areas. Sanitation supplies include soap, waterless cleaning
agents, single-use drinking cups, drinking water containers, toilet
paper and towels.
Serviceable condition. The state or ability of a tool, machine,
vehicle, or other device, to operate as it was intended by the
manufacturer to operate.
Servicing and/or maintenance. Workplace activities such as
constructing, installing, setting up, adjusting, inspecting, modifying,
repairing, maintaining and servicing machines, equipment or systems.
These activities include lubricating, cleaning, unjamming and making
adjustments or tool changes.
Setting up. Any work performed to prepare a machine, equipment or
system to perform its normal production operation.
Sewered toilet facility. A fixture maintained for the purpose of
urination and defecation that is connected to a sanitary sewer, septic
tank, holding tank (bilge), or on-site sewage disposal treatment
facility and that is flushed with water.
Ship's systems. Machines, equipment and systems that are a
permanent or inherent part of a vessel. Such systems include, but are
not limited to, systems that ensure the vessel's operational
capability, such as propulsion, navigation, radar, electrical, water,
steering, ballast, structural systems and systems to care for the crew.
Ship's systems do not include inherently general industry operations
onboard vessels such as fish processing equipment.
Tagout. The placement of a tagout device on an energy isolating
device, in accordance with an established procedure, to indicate that
the energy isolating device and the equipment being controlled may not
be operated until the tagout device is removed.
Tagout device. A prominent warning device, such as a tag and a
means of attachment, which can be securely fastened to an energy
isolating device in accordance with an established procedure, to
indicate that the energy isolating device and the equipment being
controlled may not be operated until the tagout device is removed.
Vehicle safety equipment. Those systems and devices installed on a
motor vehicle for the purposes of effecting the safe operation of the
vehicle such as safety belts, airbags, headlights, tail lights,
emergency hazard lights, windshield wipers, brakes, horn, mirrors,
windshields and other windows and locks.
Vermin. Includes insects, birds and other animals, such as rodents
and feral cats, which may create safety and health hazards for
employees.
Walking and working surfaces. Any surface on or through which
employees gain access to or perform job tasks. Walking and working
surfaces also include any surface upon or through which employees are
required or allowed to walk or work in the workplace. Walking and
working surfaces include, but are not limited to, work areas,
accessways, aisles, exits, gangways, ladders, ramps, stairs, steps and
walkways.
Subpart J--[Amended]
8. In Sec. 1915.162, paragraph (a)(1) is revised as follows:
Sec. 1915.162 Ship's boilers.
(a) * * *
(1) The employer shall ensure that the isolation and shutoff valves
connecting the dead boiler with the live system or systems are secured,
blanked and locked or tagged, in accordance with Sec. 1915.89 Control
of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout), indicating that employees are
working on the boiler. This lock or tag shall not be removed nor the
valves unblanked until it is determined that this may be done without
creating a hazard to the employees working on the boiler, or until the
work on the boiler is completed. Where valves are welded instead of
bolted, at least two isolation and shutoff valves connecting the dead
boiler with the live system or systems shall be secured and locked or
tagged, in accordance with Sec. 1915.89 Control of Hazardous Energy
(Lockout/Tagout).
* * * * *
9. In Sec. 1915.163, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 1915.163 Ship's Piping Systems.
(a) * * *
(1) The employer shall ensure that the isolation and shutoff valves
connecting the dead system with the live system or systems are secured,
blanked and locked or tagged, in accordance with Sec. 1915.89 Control
of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout), indicating that employees are
working on the systems. The lock or tag shall not be removed or the
valves unblanked until it is determined that this may be done without
creating a hazard to the employees working on the system, or until the
work on the system is completed. Where valves are welded instead of
bolted, at least two isolation and shutoff valves connecting the dead
system with the live system or systems shall be secured, locked, or
tagged, in accordance with Sec. 1915.89.
* * * * *
10. In Sec. 1915.164, paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 1915.164 Ship's propulsion machinery.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) If the jacking gear is steam driven, the employer shall ensure
that the stop valves to the jacking gear are secured and locked or
tagged in accordance with Sec. 1915.89 Control of Hazardous Energy
(Lockout/Tagout).
(3) If the jacking gear is electrically driven, the employer shall
ensure that the circuit controlling the jacking gear is deenergized by
tripping the circuit breaker, opening the switch or removing the fuse,
whichever is appropriate and locked or tagged in accordance with Sec.
1915.89.
Subpart l--[Amended]
11. In Sec. 1915.181, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1915.181 Electrical circuits and distribution boards.
* * * * *
(c) The employer shall ensure that deenergizing the circuit is
accomplished by opening the circuit breaker, opening the switch, or
removing the fuse, whichever method is appropriate. The circuit
breaker, switch, or fuse location shall be locked out or tagged in
accordance with Sec. 1915.89 Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/
Tagout). Such locks or tags shall not be removed nor the circuit
energized until it is determined definitely that the work on the
circuit has been completed.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-24073 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
|
Federal Registers - Table of Contents
Back to Top