STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY
AND HEALTH STANDARDS BOARD
2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 350
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 274-5721
FAX (916) 274-5743
Website address www.dir.ca.gov/oshsb
Board Meeting Minutes
July 17, 2008
Page 13 of 21
SUMMARY
PUBLIC MEETING/PUBLIC HEARING/BUSINESS MEETING
July 17, 2008
Costa Mesa, California
I. PUBLIC MEETING
A. CALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONS
Chair MacLeod called the Public Meeting of the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Board) to order at 10:00a.m., July 17, 2008, in the Costa Mesa City Council Chambers, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California.
ATTENDANCE
Board Members Present Board Members Absent
Chairman John MacLeod José Moreno
Jonathan Frisch, Ph.D. Steve Rank
Bill Jackson Willie Washington
Jack Kastorff
Board Staff Division of Occupational Safety and Health
Marley Hart, Executive Officer Steve Smith, Principal Safety Engineer
David Beales, Legal Counsel Larry McCune, Principal Safety Engineer
Mike Manieri, Principal Safety Engineer
Tom Mitchell, Senior Safety Engineer
Bernie Osburn, Staff Services Analyst
Chris Witte, Executive Secretary
Others present
Tina Kulinovich, Federal OSHA Kevin Maylone, IUOE Local 12
Bo Bradley, AGC of California Dan Leacox, Greenberg Traurig
Larry Pena, Southern California Edison Bob Hornauer, NCCCO
Kevin Bland, CFCA and RCA Steve Johnson, ARCBAC
Jogen Bhalla, AMOT USA Elizabeth Treanor, Phylmar Regulatory Roundtable
Eric Schellenberger, AMOT USA Greg Peters, Specialty Crane
Jim Phillips, IUOE Local 12 Teresa Pichay, California Dental Association
Gayle Mathe, California Dental Association Graham Brent, NCCCO
David Kennedy, DDS, IAOMT Jeff Green, Dental Management
Vince Lamaestra, Pacific Maritime Association Craig Kappe, Metropolitan Stevedore Company
Anthony Kern, SSA Maritime Bruce Wick, CalPASC
Christopher San Giovanni, Metro Ports Bob Dameron, California United Terminals
James Ryel, DOSH Roy Swift, ANSI
Suerrie Fenton, Southern California Edison Cristy Sanada, Southern California Edison
Philip Youn, DOSH Kat Evans, EMS Terminal
Charles Brown, Consumers for Dental Choice Mario Coccia, SSA Marine
Mike Doering, DOSH Nicole Leacox
Don Jarrell, Pacific Maritime Association Ken Keane, PASHA Stevedoring and Terminals
B. OPENING COMMENTS
Chair MacLeod indicated that this portion of the Board’s meeting is open to any person who is interested in addressing the Board on any matter concerning occupational safety and health or to propose new or revised standards or the repeal of standards as permitted by Labor Code Section 142.2.
Graham Brent, Executive Director of the National Commission for the Certification of Crane Operators (NCCCO), provided an update of crane certifications performed during the period 2004 through 2007. He stated that in order to be certified, operators must pass a written core exam as well as at least one written specialty exam. There are four mobile crane specialty exams—namely, for truck crane lattice boom, crawler crane, telescopic crane fixed cab, and telescopic crane swing cab; NCCCO also provides a tower crane exam. All candidates must pass a practical examination in addition to the two written exams. NCCCO does not provide training, although it does maintain a list of training providers on its website as a public service to candidates in the state of California and elsewhere.
During the period 2004 through 2007, NCCCO administered 1,576 written exams in California, representing a total of over 15,000 crane operators taking over 45,000 exams. The pass rate during this period was 68% across all exams. The two crane types most frequently selected by operators were the fixed cab and the swing cab telescopic cranes, in that order.
NCCCO practical exams, which are required for certification, are administered by practical examiners who are trained by NCCCO during a three-day workshop. Since 2004, NCCCO has conducted 16 practical examiner workshops in ten cities in California. There are currently 91 practical examiners in California authorized to administer practical exams, of which 50 are for-hire examiners, meaning that they are available to be hired by employers to administer NCCCO practical exams. During the period 2004 through 2007, NCCCO was responsible for the administration of over 20,000 practical exams administered to 14,500 crane operators. The average passing percentage was 78%.
The tower crane program is considerably smaller, which reflects the population of cranes in California, representing less than 5% of total candidates. During the period 2004 through 2007, 713 candidates took the tower crane written exam and 559 took the practical exam. There are approximately 400 certified operators in tower crane operation to date.
The result of the testing has been the issuance of certification cards to just under 9,000 California crane operators during the period 2004 through 2007. These crane operators are now fully certified by NCCCO. A number of additional crane operators completed the requirements for certification in the first five months of 2008. Thus, the total number of operators certified in California to operate mobile and tower cranes combined is over 10,000.
Dr. Roy Swift, Program Director of the Personnel Certification Accreditation Program for the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), summarized Petition File No. 504, of which he is the author. Dr. Swift stated that ANSI is petitioning to change Section 5006.1(c) to recognize ANSI as an accreditor of certification programs for mobile and tower crane operators. He stated that ANSI’s Personnel Certification Accreditation Program is the gold standard in the industry, and ANSI’s accreditation is extremely important to industries that employ certified persons to carry out tasks that affect public safety and security. It is the only Personnel Certification Accreditation Program that follows a globally recognized accreditation standard, ISO 17011, that includes not only a document review, but also an onsite visit to the certification body and performance testing locations.
Larry McCune, Principal Safety Engineer for the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Division), provided an overview of the citations or violations involving injury and fatal accidents for the three-year period prior to crane operator certification becoming effective and the three years following adoption of the standard. For the three years prior to June 1, 2005 (the effective date of Section 5006.1), there were a total of ten fatal crane accidents as well as 30 serious injuries requiring hospitalization. After June 1, 2005, through May 31, 2008, there were two fatal crane accidents and 13 serious injuries requiring hospitalization. Since Section 5006.1 became effective, there has been a substantial reduction in the number of fatalities and serious injuries. Mr. McCune stated that these statistics are not entirely complete, as the report did not include accidents that involved no injuries or incomplete reporting.
Mr. McCune stated that during his review of these accidents, he noticed that the cases involving improper rigging far outnumbered cases involving the crane operation itself.
Mr. Jackson asked Mr. McCune whether the 15 crane operators involved in the 15 injury accidents between June 1, 2005, and May 31, 2008, were certified.
Mr. McCune responded that there were no citations issued in those cases for the lack of crane operator certification.
Mr. Jackson asked whether the causes of the accidents were operator error that would be attributable to an unqualified operator.
Mr. McCune stated that accidents involving contact with power lines seem to happen in a moment of distraction or through other failures to keep an eye on the location of power lines in relation to the crane’s boom. He stated that the reduction in these types of accidents has been significant since crane operator certification had been mandated.
Mr. Jackson then asked whether the Division had any information regarding certifications from the Operating Engineers Program, the other certification entity in California.
Mr. McCune stated that the Division does not have those numbers, but that a representative from the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) was present that would have that information.
Jim Phillips of the Operating Engineers Certification Program stated that although he did not have the exact numbers, IUOE had certified approximately 8,200 crane operators.
Dr. Frisch asked Mr. McCune what the citation rate had been for operators who were not properly certified.
Mr. McCune responded that he would present that information to the Board at a future date.
Dr. Frisch stated that he would be interested in knowing the citations that had been issued, and of those citations, whether there is any trend associated with operators who had tried and failed to pass the examinations that are still operating cranes.
Eric Schellenberger, President of Protective Technology for Roper Industries, summarized Petition File No. 505. The objective of the petition is to protect refineries and oil and gas facilities in which diesel engine powered equipment goes into a runaway condition—an engine running out of control on an external fuel source where the operator cannot shut down the engine by traditional methods. Turning off a diesel engine with an ignition does not shut down the engine, because it could be fueled by an external fuel source such as a vapor cloud or other external elements in the air. The most effective method of shutting down a diesel engine is an inexpensive air intake cut-off valve that can be installed easily on any type of diesel engine. Petition File No. 505 seeks to amend the Petroleum Safety Orders—Refining, Section 6874, by expanding the current regulation to address safety devices and safeguards to prevent fire and explosion for stationary, mobile, and vehicular diesel engines operating in and around refineries.
Mr. Kastorff asked what the cost to employers would be to retrofit existing equipment with the suggested air intake cut-off valve and what the cost would be to install the valve as standard equipment.
Mr. Schellenberger responded that the cost would be approximately $150 to $300 to install on a small engine; for a more sophisticated, stationary diesel engine, the cost would be $1,500 to $3,000. He stated that the average price is usually between $750 to $900.
Dr. Frisch asked why the proposal was being limited to the Petroleum Safety Orders and whether there are other hazardous environments in which the same risk exists.
Mr. Schellenberger responded that it would be wise to consider other industries such as mining and petrochemical facilities, and other workplaces in which diesel engines would be a potential ignition source.
Charles Brown, National Counsel for Consumers for Dental Choice and one of the authors of Petition File No. 501, spoke in support of the proposed petition decision and urged the Board to ask the Health Expert Advisory Committee (HEAC) to “act expeditiously” in their consideration of changes to the PEL for mercury and send it back to the Board on a date certain.
Dr. David Kennedy of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, spoke in opposition of the proposed petition decision for Petition File No. 502. He stated that numerous routine daily activities in a dental office will exceed the ceiling limit for mercury. He stated that the Board staff’s evaluation was “full of errors” and not adequate to fulfill the petition.
Dr. Frisch asked Dr. Kennedy whether he was an employer during his 30 years as a practicing dentist. Dr. Kennedy responded affirmatively.
Dr. Frisch then asked whether Dr. Kennedy, as an employer, was aware of regulations applicable to the workplace he was managing. Dr. Kennedy responded that every two years, dentists are required to take continuing education courses. He has taken those courses, and at each one he has asked questions regarding informed consent, right to know, and facility monitoring, and each time, he received a false answer. He stated that he, personally, is aware of the regulations, but other dentists are not.
Dr. Frisch asked whether Dr. Kennedy’s implication was that most dentists who are managing other employees are not aware of and are not enforcing and are not complying with those regulations. Dr. Kennedy responded affirmatively.
Dr. Frisch stated that he was trying to determine whether the issue was one of lack of compliance with existing regulations or the need for new regulations. He asked what new regulations would help, if there is not already compliance with existing regulations.
Dr. Kennedy responded that currently there is no vertical standard for mercury protection. He stated that existing controls are inadequate to protect employees from mercury vapor. He also stated that most dentists do not know that they exceed the ceiling limits for mercury exposure.
Mr. Kastorff asked Mr. Smith how many mercury vapor detectors the Division has. Mr. Smith responded that although he did not have the exact number, he knows that the Division has them.
Mr. Kastorff asked whether Mr. Smith had the results of any testing the Division had performed. Mr. Smith responded that, in her evaluation of the petition, Deborah Gold reviewed citations that had been issued, and most of the citations were for asthma triggers and other pathogens in the dental industry. He was unsure whether there were citations for mercury exposure.
Mr. Kastorff stated that, as Dr. Frisch had mentioned, it appeared that this is a situation in which regulations exist and are not being enforced, rather than a need for a new regulation. He stated that he would like to see more data.
Dr. Kennedy stated that Ms. Gold’s evaluation also stated that most offices were in compliance with the time-weighted average PEL for mercury.
Chair MacLeod stated that Dr. Kennedy had indicated in his testimony that this has been a problem for in excess of 20 years, and now the petitions are asking that the Board act immediately. He expressed concern about that, and he asked Dr. Kennedy to clarify it.
Dr. Kennedy responded that he began to lecture to dentists on the Right to Know act in 1990 and has spoken in 27 countries, informing dentists about these hazards. He stated that the reason he is asking for immediate action by the Board is that there is now a large body of evidence showing that people in dentistry are being impaired, that the ceiling limit is being exceeded routinely, and it is an ongoing injury.
Chair MacLeod expressed his belief that the FDA has to issue regulations by June 2009. He asked whether Dr. Kennedy had any idea what those regulations would include or the direction they might go.
Dr. Kennedy responded affirmatively. He stated that mercury would most likely be classified as a Class 2 with controls. However, that would probably lead to lawsuits, because an implant that leaks mercury cannot be classified as a Class 2.