Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH)
Minutes of May 7-8, 2014 Meeting

U.S. Department of Labor
Frances Perkins Building
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20210

The meeting of the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) was called to order by Chairman Erich J. (Pete) Stafford at 9 am on Thursday, May 8, 2014. The following members and OSHA staff were present:

Opening Remarks

Speaker: Chairman Pete Stafford

Chairman Stafford welcomed the attendees and provided an overview of the meeting agenda. He informed the audience that if they wanted to address the committee, they must sign up to be recognized during the public comment period at the conclusion of the day.

Office of Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health presentation

Speaker: Ms. Deborah Berkowitz, Senior Policy Advisor

Ms. Berkowitz welcomed ACCSH members and all others in attendance and thanked them for their participation in the ACCSH workgroups and for their involvement in the Workers Memorial OSHA event in DC. She informed them that the Agency had been particularly busy over the last several months, and provided brief updates on OSHA regulatory activities, general outreach activities, and enforcement activities.

Directorate of Construction Regulatory Update

Speaker: Mr. Dean McKenzie, Deputy Director, OSHA Directorate of Construction

Using the "DOC Updates 2014" PowerPoint presentation, Dean McKenzie presented the update, which included statistics, some of the more significant issues involving current and proposed construction standards, pre-rule initiatives and outreach, and the 2014 Fall Prevention Campaign Stand Down.

For the Power Point presentation: "DOC Updates 2014," refer to Exhibit 7 of May 8, 2014.

Training and Outreach Workgroup Report

Speaker: Mr. Jerry Rivera, Employer Representative

Mr. Rivera read the Training and Outreach Workgroup Report, which reflected the group's May 7, 2014 discussion of possible amendments to the OSHA 502 course, Update for Construction Industry Outreach Trainers. The workgroup emphasized that it was not able to make a strong recommendation because there was no OSHA OTI representation during the workgroup meeting.

For the Training and Outreach Workgroup Report, refer to Exhibit 8 of May 8, 2014.

Temporary Worker Workgroup Report

Speaker: Mr. Jeremy Betancourt, Public Representative

Mr. Betancourt presented the workgroup report. On May 7, 2014 the workgroup members heard a presentation from Mr. Steven Dwyer and Ms. La Tonia James Rouse of the American Staffing Association, who provided information about their program, how they train temporary workers, and their existing OSHA Alliance. In addition, the workgroup discussed the OSHA Temporary Worker Initiative (TWI) and the challenges that OSHA is experiencing in developing several best practice documents for this specific group of employees. Because of the unique aspects of the construction industry (highly mobile and rapidly changing), the group believes that there should be a separate guidance document for temporary workers in the construction industry, and ACCSH should consider inviting host employers and temporary workers to the next meeting to provide input on this topic. The workgroup also would like to invite stakeholders to review temporary workers documents developed by the Agency. They also would like an ACCSH representative to be part of the OSHA Temporary Worker Initiative group. Lastly, they would like to be informed about decisions and information that has been discussed in other NACOSH and NIOSH groups dealing with temporary workers.

For the Temporary Worker Workgroup report, refer to Exhibit 9 of May 8, 2014.

Proposed Rule to Update OSHA Standard on Eye and Face Protection in Construction

Speaker: Mr. Kenneth Stevanus, OSHA/DSG, accompanied by SOL representative Kimberly Robinson.

Mr. Stevanus's presentation reviewed the recent (2009 and 2012) updates in eye-and-face protection, head protection, and foot protection standards for general industry, shipyard/marine terminals and longshoring. OSHA is proposing to update its personal protective equipment standards for eye and face protection including the construction standard as well as the standards for general industry, shipyard/marine terminals and longshoring.

Mr. Stevanus reviewed the two options with ACCSH for changing the construction standard. He then asked the Committee to provide its recommendation for proceeding with either Option One or Option Two. He said OSHA intends to propose one option as a Notice of Public Rulemaking.

The options presented were:

1. Option one is to update the construction standard for eye and face protection, 1926.102, by replacing the provisions of 1926.102(a)(1) through (a)(3), and (a)(7) with the provisions found in general industry standard at 1910.133(a)(1) through (a0(4) and 1810.133(b).
2. Option Two is similar to Option 1, except OSHA would substitute only current 1926.102(a)(2) with the list of updated consensus standards from 1910.133(b)(1) and the equivalent-protection provision in paragraph (b)(2) of the general industry standard.

For further details about Mr. Stevanus's presentation, refer to Exhibit 10 of May 8, 2014 (Proposed Rule to Update OSHA Standard on Eye and Face Protection in Construction)

Health Hazards, Emerging Issues and Prevention through Design Workgroup Report

Speaker: Mr. Walter Jones, Employee Representative, Associate Director, Occupational Safety & Health, Laborers' Health and Safety Fund

Mr. Jones presented the workgroup report and pointed out that the work group discussed what a focus four for health for construction might look like. He pointed out that the majority of construction incidents are safety related rather than health related. Although health hazards can take a lengthy period of time to manifest, they are as important as safety hazards. He reported examples of health hazard issues that occurred in construction, e.g. respiratory, hearing, dermal absorption, and musculoskeletal. He discussed the possibility of adding a focus four for health to the OSHA 10 or 30 training. Most of the workgroup members believe there should be a construction health awareness campaign utilizing the OSHA website to help raise the profile of health hazards. Some members expressed their opinion that increasing the hours of the OSHA 10 was not advisable, even though adding health hazards would be a good change to the OSHA 10 training. Christine Branche reminded the group that funding for NIOSH's Adult Blood Lead Epidemiological and Surveillance (ABLES) program had been eliminated.

For the Health Hazards, Emerging Issues and Prevention through Design Workgroup report, refer to exhibit 11 of May 8, 2014.

OSHA's Proposed Rule for Beryllium: Alternatives for Construction

Speaker: Ms. Tiffany DeFoe, accompanied by Ms. Maureen Ruskin, Directorate of Standards and Guidance (DSG).

Ms. DeFoe reported that the proposal for the new beryllium standard is nearly complete, and OSHA is now in the final stages of preparing the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to send to OMB for review prior to publication in the Federal Register. She recapped some of the information presented during the last meeting and presented a few specific regulatory options for ACCSH consideration.

The options presented were:

1. Option One is to reduce the construction industry exposure limit to 0.1 or 0.2 micrograms per cubic meter and introduce a STEL. This would improve protection for helpers, cleanup workers, and other workers who might be working in the vicinity of a blasting operation, as well as provide better protection for operators in instances where respiratory equipment isn't functioning correctly.
2. Option Two is to reduce the TWA PEL, add a STEL, and also add a medical surveillance requirement for the construction industry, which would make physical exams and testing for beryllium sensitization available to workers depending on their beryllium exposure, and would offer screening for chronic beryllium disease (CBD) to workers who are found to be sensitized.
3. Lastly, Option Three would include construction in the scope of the proposed rule, and the construction protections would include all the ancillary provisions applicable in general industry. The provisions OSHA is considering include the reduced PEL, a STEL, exposure assessment, regulated areas, methods of compliance including a written exposure control plan, respiratory protection and PPE, hygiene areas, housekeeping, medical surveillance, medical removal, communication of hazards, and recordkeeping.

Some of the ACCSH members asked OSHA for more information concerning the proposed new requirements, including the draft regulatory text, and their impact on construction employers, saying they needed this information to provide OSHA with a formal recommendation. One member noted that impact in the construction industry would be primarily with abrasive blasters and those working near the blasters and thus exposed, including clean-up workers. Most of the hazards and problems are encountered in general industry. Outside abrasive blasters including helpers, OSHA doesn't expect much risk at all in construction industry. Ms. Defoe asked that if any ACCSH member has any information/data, to please provide it to OSHA. Option One and Option Two would lower the PEL, and Option Three would lower the PEL and require additional activities.

Public comments presented were:

1. Paul Mellon compared beryllium, silica, sand/glass exposures and toxicity. He referenced an OSHA study that beryllium exposures routinely exceed current PEL. Employers always have option to use non-beryllium containing abrasive materials, for example, crushed glass. Option Three brings beryllium in line with protections for asbestos, lead, and other exposures.
2. Dominic DeAngelo, VP of Sales and Marketing, Harsco Metals and Minerals, formerly Reed Minerals, the largest U.S. manufacturer of coal slag abrasives for the surface preparation market. He was unaware of any direct correlation between their Black Beauty brand of coal slag abrasives and beryllium disease or beryllium sensitization. Concern with Option Three's impact on the abrasive market: how to monitor/control at thousands of work sites? Option Three's costs are excessive and unwarranted. ACCSH Sarah Coyne asked, "Do you support a lower PEL?" Mr. DeAngelo responded there was need to enforce proper PPE. Ms. Coyne said that PPE does not eliminate exposure. In her experience, she would start blasting and immediately be covered in dust.
3. Keith Wrightson, Worker Safety and Health Advocate with Public Citizen's Congress Watch Division. In 2001 Public Citizen petitioned OSHA to lower the beryllium PEL to 0.2. The process has been stalled for 13 years. Public Citizen strongly supports Option Three. Public Citizen now recommends a PEL of 0.1 and the Option Three provisions.

Ten members then voted for Option #3, and four members abstained.

Ms. DeFoe's presentation, "OSHA's Proposed Rule for Beryllium," can be found in exhibit 12 of May 8, 2014.

Proposed Standards Improvements Project (SIP) IV Rulemaking

Speakers: Paul Bolon and Dayton Eckerson, OSHA Directorate of Construction

Mr. Eckerson reported the proposed regulatory text changes under SIP-IV for several OSHA standards. The SIP-IV candidates presented for revision under 1926 are Subpart G- Signs, Signals, and Barricades; Proposed revision to 1926.605 Marine Operations and Equipment; and Subpart S - Underground Construction, Caissons, Cofferdams and Compressed Air.
Mr. Stribling wants OSHA to insert the chimney variance into SIP-IV and/or address this issue as a non-mandatory standard. An SOL representative stated that companies are already complying with the chimney variance. Mr. Bolon stated that DOC would reconsider this issue.

For further details about the SIP-IV candidates, refer to Exhibit 16 of May 8, 2014.

Proposed Technical Amendments and Corrections to OSHA's Cranes and Derricks Standards

Speakers: Paul Bolon and Ashley Briefel, OSHA Directorate of Construction, and Richard Ewell, SOL

Ms. Briefel discussed crane amendments that OSHA recommends for the existing crane standard. The recommended amendments include changes regarding the digger derrick definition, multi-purpose machines, stabilizer position sensor/monitors on articulating cranes, and proximity alarms and insulating links.

Public Comments

Lance Burney, Executive Director, SIG ALARM, Sanford, FL. Mr. Burney identified his company, SIG ALARM, as one of a very few manufacturers in the United States of proximity alarms. He stated there are a few other manufacturers elsewhere in the world. His position was that an added requirement for NRTL approval or additional criteria was unnecessary. There have been no accidents on equipment using proximity alarms. NRTL approval is an extremely expensive process, and there is a lack of interest to pursue. He suggested there be language addressing two concerns: 1) operating the equipment with a boom angle and length significantly different than that used for the device's last sensitivity adjustment; and 2) operating the equipment on sites with multiple overhead power lines, especially where those power lines had differing voltages or involved intersecting installations.

Art Sapper, representing theCrane Power Line Safety Organization. Mr. Sapper focused on the issue of insulating links. He said that since no NRTL can approve insulating links, OSHA is recommending removing insulating links from the standard. Mr. Sapper believes that there are alternatives that should be considered before eliminating insulating links from the standard. These include certification by qualified testing laboratory, e.g. 1926.449; and certification by manufacturer, e.g., 1926.105(d), 1926.453(a)(2). In addition, other regulations under the crane standard require employers to follow manufacturer recommendations.

Mr. Sapper then discussed the issue of insulating links that work when wet or dirty and whether self-checks are not needed when using gloves. If OSHA removes insulating links from the standard because NRTL approval is not available, it will degrade employee safety for no reason.

For further details about the cranes amendments, refer to Exhibits 17 and 18 of May 8, 2014.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.