Devi P. Rungta, Stanley P. Smith, John S. Starcher

Copyright 2001, NFPA

507

Report of the Committee on

Gas Hazards

William D. Stegbauer, ChairSouthern Towing Co., TN [U]

Rep. American Waterways Operators

Stephen R. Bayer, Mine Safety Appliances Co. (MSA), PA [M] Rep. Industrial Safety Equipment AssociationThomas L. Beacham, Lyon Shipyard, VA [U] Rep. Shipbuilders Council of AmericaJohn T. Bell, Marine Inspection Services Inc., TX [SE] Rep. Marine Chemists Association, Inc.Emile R. Benard, U.S. Coast Guard, DC [E]Leslie Blaize, Belay Inc., OR [SE] Rep. Marine Chemists Association, Inc,Joseph J. Cox, U.S. Chamber of Shipping of America, DC [SE]Joseph V. Daddura, U.S. Dept of Labor, DC [E]Henry Dale Krabbenschmidt, U.S. Navy - Military SealiftCommand Pacific, CA [U]Devi P. Rungta, ABS Corp., TX [I]Stanley P. Smith, ITS Inc., WA [I]John S. Starcher, U.S. Dept. of the Navy, VA [E] Rep. Shipyard Conversion/RepairKenneth M. Vogel, Marsh USA, Inc., NJ [I]

Alternates

Robert V. Albert, U.S. Dept. of the Navy, NH [E] (Alt. to J. S. Starcher)Jose Hernandez, U.S. Navy - Military Sealift Command/Atlantic,VA [U] (Alt. to H. D. Krabbenschmidt)Frank G. Monaghan, Monaghan & Assoc., CA [SE] (Alt. to L. Blaize)Edward J. Willwerth, Atlantic Environmental & Marine Services,Inc., MA [SE] (Alt. to J. T. Bell)

Nonvoting

Mark C. Swiatkiewicz, Case Chemicals, United Kingdom [SE]

Staff Liaison: David G. Trebisacci

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primaryresponsibility for documents on the prevention of fire andexplosion of flammable vapors in compartments or in spaces onboard vessels and within shipyards and on the conditions that mustexist in those compartments or spaces in order that workers cansafely enter them and perform work.

This list represents the membership at the time the Committee wasballoted on the text of this edition. Since that time, changes in themembership may have occurred. A key to classifications is found at thefront of this book.

This portion of the Technical Committee Report of theCommittee on Gas Hazards is presented for adoption.

This Report on Comments was prepared by the TechnicalCommittee on Gas Hazards, and documents its action on thecomments received on its Report on Proposals on NFPA 306,Standard for the Control of Gas Hazards on Vessels, 1997 edition,as published in the Report on Proposals for the 2001 May Meeting.

This Report on Comments has been submitted to letter ballot ofthe Technical Committee on Gas Hazards, which consists of 13voting members. The results of the balloting, after circulation ofany negative votes, can be found in the report.

NFPA 306 — May 2001 ROC — Copyright 2001, NFPA

508

(Log #37)306- 1 - (Entire Document): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Collins Brent, Superior Boat Works, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-2RECOMMENDATION: I encourage you to eliminate thisproposed change.SUBSTANTIATION: Superior Boat Works, Inc. is a smallshipyard engaged primarily in tank barge repair. This proposedrule change will increase our cost with no positive impact onsafety. We foresee the following problems: Many of the jobs that we do first involve the entire cleaning andgas-freeing of the barge. In this condition the marine chemist hascertified that the barge is 100% gas-free and work can be doneanywhere. It is at that point that the scope of work is defined afterthe barge is gas-free and "SAFE FOR WORKERS" and "SAFE FORHOT WORK." Prior to the chemist certificate being issued theowner may not be able to determine the scope of work whichwould require the chemist to return after the barge has beensurveyed to determine what repairs are needed. • On occasion, a barge will be gas-freed in order to dry-dock forgauging to verify the thickness of the outer shell. Since thegrinding required is "HOT WORK" it requires a certificate. Uponcompletion of the gauging, the marine chemist would have toreturn to the yard and reissue a certificate outlining the scope ofwork. • During the course of repairs it is common for the scope ofwork to change several times as additional work is determined tobe necessary after repairs have begun. Additional fractures may befound, plating may be replaced, valves may be taken out requiringholes to be cut in the deck. These changes would require a newcertificate and in many cases may delay repairs until the chemistcompletes his work. • The Marine Chemist Certificate is required to be posted so thatworkers can read it before boarding the vessel to be able todetermine where they can work and where it is safe to enter. If thecertificate is required to describe not only the conditions of thebarge, but the scope of work in cases of major repair jobs, it couldbe several pages long. With the additional information, it mayactually reduce safety because it may be more difficult tounderstand where it is safe and where it it not. • This proposed rule change would also result in lostproductivity. If the yard is required to call a chemist for a returnvisit, workers may be idled while waiting for the chemist tocomplete his tasks. An inadvertent omission of a small fracture orif the layout of shell plating is changed, it would require work tostop until the chemist returns and amends or replaces thecertificate. Our present operations include monitoring and testing of thespaces by the shipyard competent person before each shift. Thisassures that if conditions change that would require the return ofthe marine chemist, work would stop until the spaces wereevaluated by the marine chemist, and then the certificate would beredone if needed. This could entail either a change in theenvironment or a change in the scope or work. The present system is not broke. This proposal will result inincreased cost to both the shipyard and the operator. This will notincrease the level of safety in the shipyards and may actuallydecrease safety.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-52 (Log #59).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 ABSTENTION: 1EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: DADDURA: I am abstaining from voting on the 306 proposedchanges for the following reasons: In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget(OMB) Circular No. A-119 Revised, "Federal Participation in theDevelopment and use of Voluntary Standards," dated October 26,1982, government participation in the voluntary standards bodies isintended to include full involvement in discussions, technicaldebates, and registering of opinions. However, in these caseswhere the Occupational Safety and Health Administration(OSHA) representatives serve as members of consensus standard-developing groups, the Agency has to guard against any possibilitythat a conflict of interest may occur involving established views andpositions of the Agency.

Accordingly, OSHA Administrative Directive ADC 1.1, datedDecember 22, 1976, directs OSHA personnel to serve on suchgroups only in a nonvoting advisory capacity. In addition, suchpersonnel shall neither direct the committee’s course nor assumeresponsibilities that would dominate the nature of the committee’stechnical output.

___________________

(Log #31)306- 2 - (1-1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: David J. Miller , Marine Enviornment Testing, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-3RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "...Or other products including residues and preservative coatings capable of creating a hazardous condition.SUBSTANTIATION: The marine chemist is the sole qualifiedindividual capable of making an assessment of coatings andresidues. The competent person is charged with making decisionsregarding changes in conditions of the certificate. He is given noregulatory latitude regarding combustible or flammable materials.If he encounters these materials, he is to defer to the marinechemist.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee reiterates thatinclusion of these items in the scope would mean that a MarineChemist would have to consider these materials in addition tocargo and fuel. This would in effect expand the scope of thedocument. The safety aspect of these materials is covered inOSHA's Shipyard Employment standard. Hazard concerns relatedto these materials are also covered elsewhere in Section 1-1.3 of thestandard. If this comment were accepted, it would require aMarine Chemist to inspect vessels that the competent person isalready permitted by OSHA regulations to inspect.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #33)306- 3 - (1-1.6): RejectSUBMITTER: David J. Miller , Marine Enviornment Testing, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-6RECOMMENDATION: Delete proposed text as follows: "1-1.6 This Standard...or other dangerous atmospheres. WhetherInvolving Stationery or Mobile Vessels located within."SUBSTANTIATION: The standard already provides for all areasof the shipyard that contain dangerous atmospheres. This allowsthe chemist or competent person to check railcars, tank trucks,manholes, etc. No additional language is required.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.The Committee submitted Committee Comment 306-34 (Log #1),and revised Section 1-1.6 to read as follows: 1-1.6: This standard applies to land-side confined spaces, whetherstationary or mobile, or other dangerous atmospheres locatedwithin the boundaries of a shipyard or ship repair facility.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Comment 306-34(Log #1). The Committee still felt it necessary to include mobileand stationary items (such as rail cars, slop tanks, etc.) in thescope of the standard because of the probability that tanks andspaces associated with them are found in a typical shipyard.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #42)306- 4 - (1-3): RejectSUBMITTER: Tom D. Littlepage, Gulf Marine Chemists, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-7RECOMMENDATION: Delete "emergency repair".SUBSTANTIATION: "Lack of planning on your part does notnecessarily constitute an emergency on my part." This proposal has the look of a "306 General Exclusion Clause".Emergencies occur every day in shipyards, usually as productionconcerns encroach safety, time and budget. There is no definition


509

of "emergency" currently provided which would not be subject tomanipulation. There is no requirement for mandatoryconcordance with "any authority having jurisdiction". There maybe some misunderstanding with the "AHJ" proposed definition,allowing an owner or their representative to claim thisresponsibility.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is the Committee's opinion thatthe conditions under which emergency repairs are authorized areapplicable only to vessels whose safety is imperiled.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #23)306- 5 - (1-5): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: John T. Bell , Marine Inspection Services, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-10RECOMMENDATION: Add an asterisk with a reference inAppendix A. "Refer to 29CFR 1915.52 for guidance when doing hot-work nearthese materials."SUBSTANTIATION: Since the standard is going to definecombustible material, it would be helpful to refer to regulationconcerning working near them. This will also provide someguidance on dealing with cargos that are combustible solids, suchas set up asphalt.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.The Committee will add an asterisk to the definition ofcombustible material in the definitions section of the standard,and add NFPA 312, Standard for Fire Protection of Vessels DuringConstruction, Repair, and Lay-Up, as a reference in the associatedAnnex item.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Committee wanted to reference anNFPA standard (NFPA 312, Standard for Fire Protection of VesselsDuring Construction, Repair, and Lay-Up) in the Annex foradditional information on doing hotwork around combustiblematerial.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #67)306- 6 - (1-5): RejectSUBMITTER: John T. Bell , Marine Inspection Services, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-10RECOMMENDATION: Add an asterisk with a reference inAppendix A as follows: "Refer to 29 CFR 1915.52 for guidance when doing hot-work nearthese materials."SUBSTANTIATION: Since the standard is going to definecombustible material, it would be helpful to refer to regulationconcerning working near them. This will also provide someguidance on dealing with cargos that are combustible solids, suchas set up asphalt.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commen t 306-5 (Log #23).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #19)306- 7 - (1-5 (New) ): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Alan Bonds, A. Bonds ChemistCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-11RECOMMENDATION: Add the following sentence to proposalfrom CFR 1915.40 to read as follows: "...as required by the particular regulation under the condition towhich it applies."

SUBSTANTIATION: As written, this proposal conflicts with CFR1915 subpart B, 1915.12. C3. Competent persons can not prescribenecessary respiratory protection. As proposed the NFPA 306definition implies that a competent person can prescriberespiratory protection. I find this definition contradictory.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-14 (Log #28).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #74)306- 8 - (1-5 (New) ): RejectSUBMITTER: Roy L. Lutz, Jr., Bath, MECOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-15RECOMMENDATION: Delete requirement for inspection every24 hours to maintain validity of certificate.SUBSTANTIATION: Inspection prior to entry of personnel intotanks, voids and confined spaces is sufficient. Inspection shouldnot be required if a space is not having work performed in it.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee was unsure of thereference to the comment, and to which proposal it wasaddressed.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: ALBERT: Testing should only be required when work isprogressing.

___________________

(Log #43)306- 9 - (1-5 Secured): RejectSUBMITTER: Tom D. Littlepage, Gulf Marine Chemists, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-15RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: "Secured: closed in a manner to avoid opening or operation."SUBSTANTIATION: The committee favored eliminating"accidential" due to the paradox that accidents cannot beeliminated. The substitution, "prevent or by written notice restrict"introduces a significant change, for a chemist now appears to beliable for any opening: accident, intention, or dereliction. If thereis a change of conditions attributed to one of these modes, whichare beyond the chemist’s control, the chemist could be considerednegligent under the proposed requirements.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee stands by thesubstantiation to original proposal, in order to eliminate anyambiguity with the use of the word "accidental."NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #10)306- 10 - (1-5 Combustible Liquids): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert F. Corbin, Commandant (G-MSO-3) U.S.Coast GuardCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-9RECOMMENDATION: The committee should reconsiderreverting back to the original definition.SUBSTANTIATION: The original definition in 306 is derivedfrom the USCG regulations which has authority over flammableand combustible products carried in bulk on vessels. Theproposed change will give a new definition for a classificationalready defined in Title 46 CFR. If the proposal is accepted thenwhen a cargo is referred to as a combustible liquid you will alsohave to specify which definition you are referring to, NFPA 306 or46 CFR. This could cause a lot of confusion. Changing thedefinition to be in line with other NFPA documents is notappropriate in this case.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.


510

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee stated thatshipyards are on land, and as such are dealing with firedepartments, who are likely to be familiar with the definitions offlammable and combustible liquids and requirements of NFPA 30,Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code. Coast Guardregulations are consistent with international regulations for watertransport. The Committee also reiterated its substantiation to theoriginal proposal and believes that NFPA 306's definitions shouldbe more in line with other NFPA documents.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: BENARD: The current definitions of flammable andcombustible liquids are consistent with Title 46 Code of FederalRegulations subchapter D, which contains the Coast Guardregulations governing tank vessels, including the requirements forcertification by a Marine Chemist in accordance with NFPA 306prior to conducting hotwork. The definitions in Title 46 CFR arethe most appropriate for cargo and fuel carried aboard vessels. Achange to this definition has the potential to create significantsources of confusion and miscommunication between MarineChemists, shipyard personnel and Coast Guard inspectors.

___________________

(Log #6)306- 11 - (1-5 Competent Person): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Gregory G. Grondin , Bath Iron WorksCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-11RECOMMENDATION: Either delete the proposal or revise thedefinition to reflect OSHA’s definition to read as follows: "The term "competent person" for purposes of this part means aperson who is capable of recognizing and evaluating employeeexposure to hazardous substances or to other unsafe conditionsand is capable of specifying the necessary protection andprecautions to be taken to ensure the safety of employees asrequired by the particular regulation under the condition to whichit applies. For the purposes of Subparts B, C and D or this part,except for 1915.35(b)(8) and 1915.36(a)(5), to which the abovedefinition applies, the competent person must also meet theadditional requirements of CFR 1915.7."SUBSTANTIATION: The term competent person is an OSHAterm and OSHA has defined what it means. NFPA has noauthority to redefine the term based on Paragraph 1-4 of NFPA306. By revising an existing definition may be construed as"superseding an existing regulation." To include a requirement for a competent person to be trainedby NFPA may be for good intentions but since the NFPA trainingdoes not fully meet the requirements of 1915 it’s inclusion in 306may create a liability issue that was not previously in the standard.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-14 (Log #28).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #11)306- 12 - (1-5 Competent Person): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Robert F. Corbin, Commandant (G-MSO-3) U.S.Coast GuardCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-11RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the Committee revisit theproposed definition of "Competent Person" and reconsideraccepting the originally proposed definition 306-11 (Log #29) to bemore consistent with current regulatory requirements.SUBSTANTIATION: The designation of a Competent Person is aregulatory requirement for which the criteria for required skillsand knowledge is defined in 29 CFR 1915.7(c). The reviseddefinition proposed by the Committee has added "NFPA trainedor equivalent." The Committee must recognize it is placingadditional requirements above what is required by OSHA and itwill be necessary to define what is considered "equivalent," if thiswording remains. Also, the last portion of the definition requiresa Competent Person to recognize, evaluate and control exposuresto hazardous substances. These skills are not required by OSHAand are well beyond the capabilities of most Competent Persons.

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-14 (Log #28).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #25)306- 13 - (1-5 Competent Person): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Don Sly, Sound Testing IncCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-11RECOMMENDATION: Delete definition of Competent Person.SUBSTANTIATION: The reason is that even a marine chemist ishesitant to advertise himself as a "person...who is capable ofrecognizing and evaluating employee exposure to hazardoussubstances...and is capable of specifying the necessaryprotection..." That is the job description of a toxicologist combined with anindustrial hygienist. All the OSHA 1915 verbiage to the contrary, the CompetentPerson is not a toxicologist, and for the committee to incorporateOSHA definition whole cloth is to perpetuate OSHA’s error andto lessen 306’s contact with reality. Furthermore, nothing in yourdefinition hints that the SCP cannot write "enter with restrictions,"which is the case.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-14 (Log #28).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #28)306- 14 - (1-5 Competent Person): Accept in PartSUBMITTER: David J. Miller , Marine Enviornment Testing, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-11RECOMMENDATION: Add a new definition to read as follows: Competent Person - A person who is designated in writing bytheir employer in accordance with Title 29 CFR 1915.7 and as suchauthorized to conduct visual inspections and test to maintain aMarine Chemist Certificate. SUBSTANTIATION: The committee proposed language providesfor a level of training not required by the regulations. The ideathat every competent person be trained by the NFPA or equivalenthold every chemist to insuring the training of the competentperson. This is clearly the employer’s responsibility.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part.The Committee proposed to define Competent Person as follows: Competent Person - A person who is designated in writing bytheir employer in accordance with Title 29 CFR 1915.7. The Committee also proposed to asterisk this definition and addan Annex item A-1-5 as follows: In addition to the criteria outlined in 29 CFR 1915.7, thefollowing content is suggested as a minimum for competentperson training: • Hazard Description and Recognition - Relevant Terms, Fire & Explosion Theory, Relevant Chemistry(Including Concepts of Flash Point, Explosive Range, the Role ofOxygen, Classification of Fuels, and Solvent Vapor Pressure) - Relevant Shipboard Structures, Locations and Systems - Toxicity of Materials & Concepts of Exposure Guidance - Toxicity Resources, Guidance and Standards: the ACGIHTLV’s, OSHA’s - MSDS Information and Skills • Hazard Evaluation and Measurement - Instrumentation Theory, Operation, Maintenance, Calibrationand Hands-on Training (Including the Workings and Limitationsof the Combustible Gas Meter, the Oxygen Meter, ColorimetricDetector Tube Systems and Specific Gas Electrochemical Sensors) - Preparation For and Execution of Shipboard Confined SpaceTesting • Hazard Prevention, Control and Elimination - Regulations: Scope and Application of 29 CFR 1915 and NFPA306 - The Responsibilities and Interactions of the SCP and NFPACertificate Marine Chemist


511

- NFPA Marine Chemist’s Standard Safety Designations - Control of Ignition Sources - Ventilation Theory and Application - Key Aspects of Respiratory Protection - The Fire Watch - Written SCP records - The Marine Chemist’s Certificate • Practical Application Simulation - Hands-on Actual or Simulated Exercises, Using InstrumentsInvolving the Students, as Guided by the Instructors - Practice and Reviewed Exercises in Recordkeeping andCertifications • Examination COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee voted to accept onlythe first part of the comment to remain more in compliance withrequirements of OSHA regulations.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 ABSTENTION: 1

EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: DADDURA: See my Explanation of Abstention on Comment306-1 (Log #37).

___________________

(Log #55)306- 15 - (1-5 Competent Person): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Edward J. Willwerth, Atlantic Environmental &Marine Services, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-11RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: "An NFPA or equivalently train person...".SUBSTANTIATION: Though the NFPA has among the bestdeveloped SCP training programs, and almost certainly the bestknown, the mention of "NFPA...trained person" as part of thestandard may automatically exclude all others (including manyindependent marine chemist’s programs) from consideration,since "or equivalent" training programs are not defined. This mayalso overburden NFPA with requests for training, or leave many inthe industry short of otherwise quality training options. It may bebetter to include recommended (NFPA-type) training programsoutline in the appendix.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-14 (Log #28).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #3)306- 16 - (1-5 Facility): RejectSUBMITTER: Martin H. Finkel , Environmental Safety & Health ofAlaskaCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-59RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "Facility. A shoreside location such as a shipyard, cleaning plant,naval base, dock, pier complex, etc. that is under the control orownership of the same party and has the same continuos shorelineunder their ownership or control."SUBSTANTIATION: The committee’s restricted definition ofwhat constitutes a "facility" to only include continuous shorelinecreates more problems than it solves. The need for a singlemarine chemist certificate to apply only to one entity (one "facility"having control) makes perfect sense and should be retained. If thevessel passes on to a separate repair entity, having that new facilitycontract with a chemist to ensure that that new facility (an entirelynew repair entity) can safely perform the proposed work is animportant control. The control of the vessel is what is importanthere, not any specific limited geographic area. So what if oneentity has components on opposite sides of a river, or 20 milesaway? If the marine chemist has knowledge that it is the intent ofthe "facility" to move the vessel to these locations, determines thatsuch movement is safe, and so states on the certificate, where is thedanger? Surely, marine chemists are in the best position todetermine if this vessel movement is safe (and will takeresponsibility if that judgment is faulty). Provided that there is a requirement to clearly state on the marinechemist certificate what vessel movement is approved, and what

additional SCP inspections are required prior to continuance ofwork done under the certificate is, I see no danger here and noreason for the committee to limit the area in which vesselmovement may be allowed. The definition for "facility" need onlyspecify that control of the vessel is to be maintained by a singlelegal entity, with the same SCPs both before and after the vesselmovement. Do not limit a "facility" to continuous shoreline. State that afacility is an entity where control of the vessel is maintained by onelegal entity, with the same SCP (or SCP department in shipyardswith several SCPs). Make no mention of geographic location (ifmarine chemists are somehow abusing this provision, the MCQBhas mechanisms in place to rein in those chemists). An example is the best way to demonstrate the trouble theproposed wording will cause: In Valdez harbor in Alaska there isa tankbarge called the 500-2. This vessel has never carried anyproduct; it is an oil spill recovery vessel (will be used to containany future "Exxon Valdez" type spill). Because of its classificationas a tankbarge, it requires that I as a marine chemist inspect itprior to any hotwork. The modifications to the vessel (weldingnew equipment onto the deck, for instance) is done at the city’smunicipal dock and may take a week to complete. If a cruise shipcalls on the port, the barge must be moved to an anchorage in theharbor until the ship disembarks passengers and leaves, then thebarge is returned to the dock to resume the welding on deck.Under the current rules, I am allowed to approve this vesselmovement without the need of the vessel owner to contract withme to reinspect the vessel. If you make the proposed change inthe definition of "facility", movement to the anchorage in Valdezharbor would void the certificate, which requires another marinechemist inspection (at great cost). As a businessman, I cannotfault your attempt to create additional work and income for me,but as a safety professional I must point out that you have createdby this change in the definition a burden on the vessel owner thatis not needed for any conceivable safety reason.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: While the Committee acknowledgesthat this new definition may create isolated hardships, theCommittee also views the definition as the safest approach. Byincluding this definition in the standard, the Committee hopes toeliminate any ongoing confusion caused by varying interpretationsof the term "facility."NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #12)306- 17 - (1-5 Materials ): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert F. Corbin, Commandant (G-MSO-3) U.S.Coast GuardCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-13RECOMMENDATION: The committee should reconsiderreverting back to the original definitions.SUBSTANTIATION: The committee was mistaken when theystated the use of 80 degrees as a cutoff in NFPA 306 is unique.The use of 80 degrees is derived from the USCG regulations whichhas authority over flammable and combustible products carried inbulk on vessels. The proposed change will give new definitions forclassifications already defined in Title 46 CFR. If the proposal isaccepted then when a cargo is referred to as a flammable orcombustible liquid you will also have to specify which definitionyou are referring to, NFPA 306 or 46 CFR. This could cause a lotof confusion. Changing the definitions to be in line with otherNFPA documents is not appropriate in this case. Other NFPApublications cover different industry sectors, NFPA 306 needs tokeep in line with the maritime industry, which is unique.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee acknowledges thatthe cutoff of 80 degrees is not unique, but stands by the actiontaken. By including this definition, the Committee again is trying tobring NFPA 306 more in line with the definitions found in otherNFPA documents.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: BENARD: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment306-10 (Log #10).

___________________


512

(Log #15)306- 18 - (1-5 Non-working Period): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Robert F. Corbin, Commandant (G-MSO-3) U.S.Coast GuardCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-56RECOMMENDATION: Define "Non-working Period" in Section1-5 as follows: "Non-working Period. A period of time where all work stops onall vessels within the yard. The yard completely shuts down. Novessels are moved into or out of the yard during the stoppage." SUBSTANTIATION: It is critical to define non-working period inrelation to extending the period of testing. If non-working periodis not defined then it could be construed to mean no work isoccurring in a particular space, which could extend the period oftesting to 72 hrs. as a matter of routine. This is an extremelydangerous situation!!! You could have workers working on a vesselwith several tanks that are open and have not have been tested forup to 72 hrs. but have a Marine Chemist Certificate posted statingthe spaces are "SAFE FOR WORKERS." Many workers wouldprobably think this space was safe to enter without knowing tocheck the competent person’s log to see if it has been tested withinthe last 24 hrs. as intended. The scenario of a worker dropping atool into the space and wants to go in to retrieve it comes to mind.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.The Committee accepted the following revised definition of non-working period, to be included in the definitions section of thestandard: Non-Working Period. A period of time where all work stops onthe certified vessel.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee agreed that "Non-working Period" must be defined, and wanted to ensure that usersof the document understand that it refers to periods of inactivityon the entire certified vessel.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #16)306- 19 - (2-1): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert F. Corbin, Commandant (G-MSO-3) U.S.Coast GuardCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-60RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the committee reconsider306-60 amended as follows: Add a second paragraph to 2-1 to read: "If a space does not meet the criteria for SAFE FOR WORKERSthe Marine Chemist shall ensure immediate actions are taken toprevent entry into the space, which may include marking, labeling,securing or otherwise preventing entry." SUBSTANTIATION: It is necessary for immediate actions tooccur to prevent entry into spaces found to be unsafe. The MarineChemist has a professional responsibility to ensure this occurswhen they find a space with unsafe atmospheric conditions. Theproposal was amended to be better located within the standardbased on how Section 2-6 was rewritten in Proposal 306-56. Thewording was also changed to make it the Marine Chemist’sresponsibility to ensure action is taken, but does not require theMarine Chemist to perform the necessary actions. It also allowsoptions to labeling, such as securing the space.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: OSHA's Shipyard EmploymentStandard (29 CFR 1915.12) places the responsibility for labelingunsafe spaces on the employer. These regulations do not specifywho is required to post unsafe spaces, or who ensures that anyappropriate signs have been put in place.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: BENARD: The Coast Guard strongly believes that it is theresponsibility of the Marine Chemist to take positive action toprevent entry into a hazardous space by ensuring the space isproperly labeled or by securing the space. Communicating thehazard through the Marine Chemist certificate by itself does notallow for a secondary safety measure. This has resulted in CoastGuard marine inspectors entering a space that was found to be notsafe for workers but was improperly labeled as safe for workers onthe Certificate because the Marine Chemist mixed up the bow andstern on a barge with a raked bow and stern.

___________________

(Log #44)306- 20 - (2-2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Tom D. Littlepage, Gulf Marine Chemists, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-19RECOMMENDATION: Delete "before": "Calibration...shall be verified before each day’s use."SUBSTANTIATION: 1. The marine industry operates aroundthe clock, every day of the year. At 2 A.M., daily requirements havelittle meaning when you’ve worked all night. A criterion tocalibrate before each day requires a definition of what constitutes aday for the purpose of this section. 2. Out of town or offshore jobs estimated to be a short durationoccasionally span several days when instruments cannot becalibrated. 3. For trips requiring air transportation, compressed calibrationgas cannot be legally transported. For the Exxon Valdez incident,the many chemists who responded could not include calibrationgas in their luggage for their 2 week tour of duty. Exceptions needto be provided for.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The commenter's substantiation(parts 2 and 3) do not justify the change. Instruments must becalibrated before spaces are certified, not after several tanks havebeen tested. The Committee recognizes that days may indeed be"long" but calibration must be performed before each day's use,regardless of when that day begins.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #9)306- 21 - (2-2.2): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Robert H. Walker, III, Marine Chemist Service,Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-21RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "...spaces to be certified and, for repair or alterations involvinghot work , spaces adjacent there to in accordance with therequirements of 2-3.4(d), as applicable." SUBSTANTIATION: Without this addition, machinery spaces(e.g. engine rooms) to be certified "Safe for Hot Work" willnecessitate the requirement of having all adjacent ship’s fuel tanks,lube tanks, voids, etc. opened for visual inspections and tests; aswell as non-machinery spaces (e.g. crew’s berthing) having all adjacent heads, passageways, etc. similarly inspected and tested.Furthermore, the maritime industry (mostly US Navy, CoastGuard, and commercial shipping) will incur additional financialburdens (e.g. labor to open manhole covers, perform final closureinspections, etc.) with little to no return of added safety.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-22 (Log #22).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #22)306- 22 - (2-2.2): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: John T. Bell , Marine Inspection Services, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-21RECOMMENDATION: Delete the following text: "...spaces adjacent thereto." After Hot-Work, add text to read as follows: "...all adjacent cargo tanks and other spaces containing or havingcontained flammable or combustible materials."SUBSTANTIATION: This brings this section in line with 2-3,4,the standard safety designation safe for hot-work. 2-3,4(d) allowssome exception to every adjacent space being opened and tested.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.The Committee revised Section 2-2.2 to read: "2-2.2 The Marine Chemist's determinations shall include a visualinspection and tests of the spaces to be certified; and for repair oralterations involving hot work, all adjacent cargo tanks, spacesadjacent to cargo tanks, and other adjacent spaces containing orhaving contained flammable or combustible materials inaccordance with Section 2-3.4(d)."


513

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee wanted to reiteratethat all adjacent cargo tanks and other adjacent spaces containingor having contained flammable or combustible materials must betested, regardless of the type of space that requires certification.This clarification brings this section more in line with therequirements for the testing of adjacent spaces found in 29CFR1915.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #27)306- 23 - (2-2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: David J. Miller , Marine Enviornment Testing, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-22RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as proposed. 2-2.2 The Marine Chemist determination shall include a visualinspection and tests of the spaces to be certified. Thedetermination shall also include: A. Same B. Same C. Delete starting time and duration of work D. Same E. Same F. SameSUBSTANTIATION: The committee reiteration that all adjacentspaces must be tested to permit "Safe for Hot Work" is correct.However, that requirement is spelled out in 2-3.4(d). However, alimited hot work certificate can safely be issued without the burdenof checking adjacent spaces that have no possible adverse impactto the repair.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee believes that thestarting time and duration of the work is pertinent and should beincluded as a requirement of this section.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #29)306- 24 - (2-2.2): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: David J. Miller , Marine Enviornment Testing, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-20RECOMMENDATION: Delete text as follows: "AND SPACES ADJACENT THERETO".SUBSTANTIATION: Section 2-3.4 "Safe for Hot Work", placesthe inspection burden on the marine chemist for inspection ofadjacent spaces. Addition of the language to this section [(306-21), Log 14 adds an unnecessary burden to the marine chemist,(example: limited hot work to stairwell on a cruise ship wouldmean checking 500 adjacent staterooms. Hot work on a deck ofRO-RO-, 20 ballast and fuel tanks.)] To insist on opening thesespaces is not necessary and could potentially lead to a moredangerous situation if a secured tank is opened simply for anunnecessary inspection. Additionally, this requirement will placean unwelcome burden on the shipyard and chemist. In mostcases, this requirement will result in a huge investment of time andcost for the ship owner, shipyard and chemist.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-22 (Log #22).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #30)306- 25 - (2-2.2): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: David J. Miller , Marine Enviornment Testing, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-21RECOMMENDATION: Delete proposed text as follows: "The marine chemist’s...To be certified and for repair oralterations involving Hot Work spaces adjacent thereto."

SUBSTANTIATION: All comment proposers for this section hadthe same idea in mind. In the real world, there are simply toomany situations where the adjacent spaces cannot or areimpractical to check. Example: Opening and checking anadjacent ballast tank 600 feet from a repair. A marine chemistusing "Safe for Limited Hot Work" can effectively limit the repairwithout the adjacent space burden.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-22 (Log #22).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #36)306- 26 - (2-2.2): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: James P. Bruff, Marine Chemist Service, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-21RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows: The marine chemist’s determinations shall include a visualinspection and tests of the spaces to be certified and, as deemednecessary by the marine chemist, spaces adjacent thereto with testresults of those adjacents on the certificate. SUBSTANTIATION: Clearly, requiring all spaces adjacent tosubject space to be opened and tested either safe for workers orsafe for hot work is not common industry practice. Requiring alladjacents to be checked for a designation of safe for hot work is acontradiction in the standard itself where 2.3.4(d) clearly tells themarine chemist where he can use his own judgment. The wordingI have used still leaves the door open to test adjacents even whensaying safe for workers when adjacents are fumigated, inerted, etc. I also do not believe that the industry could incur the burden ofrequiring all adjacents to an engine room to be opened andchecked in order to get the engine room certified as safe for hotwork. This would include ballast tanks, voids, cofferdams, etc.,but not ships’ fuel tanks because they can be treated in accordancewith the marine chemist requirements?COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-22 (Log #22).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #53)306- 27 - (2-2.2): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Edward J. Willwerth, Atlantic Environmental &Marine Services, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-21RECOMMENDATION: Revise 2-2.2 to read as follows: "The marine chemist’s determinations shall include a visualinspection and tests of the spaces to be certified and, for repair oralterations involving hot work, spaces adjacent thereto."SUBSTANTIATION: Need for clarification. Several chemistshave commented that they use "SAFE FOR HOT WORK"certificates (for example) in engine rooms and the passageways inpassenger sections of cruise ships followed with exclusionarycomments to ensure safe application of hot work. The committeeneeds to discuss and clarify requirements for adjacent spaceinspection using SAFE FOR HOT WORK v. SAFE FOR LIMITEDHOT WORK, and the difference between exclusive and inclusiveguidance and comments on the certificates.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-22 (Log #22).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #57)306- 28 - (2-2.2): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: David Bennett, Newport News ShipbuildingCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-21RECOMMENDATION: NNS does not agree with the proposedchanges of 306-21 Log #14. NNS offers two possible solutions toaddress the concerns raised by the proposed change. First, we believe that the first sentence of 2.2.2 should be revisedto read as follows:


514

2.2.2 "The marine chemist’s determinations shall include a visualinspection and tests of the spaces to be certified and spacesadjacent thereto shall be treated in accordance with the marinechemist requirements." Second, we recognize the confusion regarding the necessity toinspect and test all adjacent spaces that the ROP noted. Themarine chemist should have the ability to use professionaljudgment regarding hotwork; we must allow them to excludecertain operations from being conducted that would affect thesafety of workers. The language of 2.3.6, Safe for Limited Hotwork, paragraph (c)and the last sentence should be revised to read as follows: 2.3.6 (c) "Portions of the space shall meet the requirements of2.3.4 (a), (b), (c) and (d); and the nature or type of hotwork shallbe limited or restricted and or excluded. This designation shall be followed by a statement describing thelimitations or restrictions and/or exclusions on or to the hotwork."SUBSTANTIATION: Current marine chemist practices do notmandate opening and inspecting all the adjacent spaces. Thejudgment of the chemist must be used to have common senseapplied to the rules. The marine chemist considers not only thenature of the hotwork and location of the known hotwork, but alsowhere hotwork will not be conducted. Often the certificate isannotated "No hotwork permitted on or heat transfer to anyadjacent boundaries of tanks, voids, hollow structures, includingpipe lines not certified as "Safe for Hotwork" or "Safe for LimitedHotwork". We do not agree with the NFPA 306-May 2001 ROP (log #14)proposed amendment 306-21-(2.2.2) as drafted. Other than cargotanks, current marine chemist practice does not require thephysical inspection and testing of all adjacent spaces that are notrelevant to the proposed hotwork. NNS agrees with the proposalpoint regarding simple entry. NNS does not interpret 29 CFR 1915as requiring that all adjacents to a space must be opened andtested. Opening all adjacent spaces when no personnel areentering the adjacents is not current industry practice. Marinechemist test spaces before allowing entry, when they are adjacentto spaces that contain or have contained fumigants, toxics,corrosives, irritants, combustibles, or flammables for the samehazards. If personnel must enter these adjacent spaces, propertesting and inspections would be completed before personnelwould be allowed to enter. This proposed change (306-21) doesnot properly address the adjacent space issue; and as written, thestandard will result in significant cost without providing anyadditional level of protection to workers. In fact, this unnecessaryentry into adjacent spaces will expose the competent persons toadditional physical hazards. The following are some examples why the current 306 standardand proposed revision 306-21 are unnecessarily burdensome andcontrary to industry practices. - As proposed the customer must open all the adjacent spaces tobraze a water line to the water fountain located in a berthing area. - Repair firm needs to seal weld cable tubes to the deck that iscommon to a second deck compartment and the overhead of a 4thdeck opened dry void. Each space is safe for this limited hotwork.The standard as drafted would require the opening of all dry voidsforward and aft, the eighth deck voids and all JP-5 tanks adjacentto the dry void. In each of these examples, personnel and vesselsafety is not affected by the intended hotwork whether all closedand secured adjacents are or are not inspected. Please note theuninspected adjacent spaces must remain closed and secureduring the hotwork. - Repair firm needs to weld 15 TLI hangers to "I" beams within aspace. The welding of hangers to the beam will not transfer heat toany adjacent spaces. The space is clean and poses no risk tohotwork. However, the work is 20 feet away from closed diesel fueland or lube oil tanks. The marine chemist can designate the spacewhere the hangers are to be welded as "Safe for Limited Hotwork"and follow this designation with the following statement "Hotworklimited. No hotwork permitted on or heat transfer to any adjacentboundaries of tanks, voids, hollow structures, including pipesunless certified as "Safe for Hotwork"or "Safe for LimitedHotwork." The diesel tank or lube oil tanks could be listed as "NotSafe for Hotwork". Excluding hotwork from boundaries ofadjacent spaces would permit the work to be conducted withoutthe unnecessary opening of the diesel fuel and lube oil tanks. Inaddition, the certificate would allow a 16th hanger to be welded tothe beam (should it become necessary) without having to obtainanother marine chemist certificate. These real situations along with many others would becomeunrealistically costly and time consuming if the ROP is adopted asit is currently proposed. NNS agrees that the standard does not

adequately address current marine chemist practices and must berevised to reflect a common sense approach to necessary industrypractices that pose no risk to personnel or ship’s property. NNSbelieves the marine chemist must be allowed to use theirprofessional judgment in these cases. The committee should adopt language that allows the marinechemist to operate in accordance with the standard and allowcommon sense to be applied aboard vessels. The NNS changes tosections 2.2 and 2.3.6, if adopted, would allow the marine chemistto permit certain hotwork while excluding other hotwork thatwould clearly pose a risk to personnel or vessel. These smallchanges would allow the marine chemist to use their professionaljudgment to safely solve these work issues relating to adjacentspaces.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-22 (Log #22).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

Sequence Number 306-29 was not used.

(Log #63)306- 30 - (2-2.2, 3-2.2, 3-3.2, 3-3.3, 3-4.1): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Joseph V. Daddura , Rep. U.S. Department ofLabor OSHACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-15RECOMMENDATION: Delete proposal. The Committee proposes to define "secured" in Section 1.5 toread as follows: "Secured. Closed in a manner to prevent, or bywritten notice restrict opening or operation." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee agreed to delete the word "accidental" from thedefinition of "secured" in order to eliminate the ambiguity of theword "accidental."

SUBSTANTIATION: The Navy requires a fuel tank to be gasfreed from the first valve. 29 CFR 1915.15(a) requires pipe lines tobe disconnected, blanked off, or otherwise blocked by a positivemethod. Not tagged and the closing of valves.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.The Committee revised the definition of "secured" in thedefinitions section to read as follows: Secured. Closed in a manner to prevent opening or operation. The Committee also decided to add an asterisk to the definitionof "secured" and list the following examples in the Annex: Examples: Dogged down, bolted down, removing or locking thevalve handwheel, label.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee decided toeliminate the wording "or by written notice restrict" because thislanguage infers that lock-out, tag-out measures have to beemployed only, when other measures are available. TheCommittee also wanted to give examples of "securing" in theAnnex to explain securing methods in maritime vernacular.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #45)306- 31 - (2-2.2(e)): RejectSUBMITTER: Tom D. Littlepage, Gulf Marine Chemists, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-24RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows: "2.2.2(e) Verification that cargo tank pipe lines.SUBSTANTIATION: The committee felt that if accepted, it maylead to the misconception that other pipelines do not representhazards. A marine chemist is trained to assume any space,including piping, is unsafe unless demonstrated otherwise. Thecommittee’s concerns are unsupported in light of the marinechemist training curriculum verification of all piping in eachcertified space cannot be universally implemented. All piping inengine rooms and machinery spaces cannot be expected to meetthis requirement. Pump rooms are occasionally manned spaces,and may occasionally require CG inspections for such things asTVE’s, while the piping is full of cargo.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.


515

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee stands by thesubstantiation to the original proposal, in that it does not want tolimit this requirement in this section of the standard to cargo tankpipelines. Hazardous material can be introduced via many types ofpipelines. Acceptance of this comment could lead to themisconception that other pipelines are not capable of causing orcontributing to an unsafe condition.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #72)306- 32 - (2-3.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Roy L. Lutz, Jr., Bath, MECOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-27RECOMMENDATION: 2-3.1 Safe Permitted for workers ...SUBSTANTIATION: Present safety designations have worked wellfor many years and are basically understood by the marineindustry. OSHA 29 CFR 1915 also uses these designations. Itwould probably be confusing to make changes now.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee stands by thesubstantiation for the original proposal, and believes that the"Atmosphere Safe for Workers" designation more accuratelyreflects that aspect of safe entry criteria that the Marine Chemist isrequired to determine. The Committee also does not feel that thisis contradictory to the requirements in any existing federalregulation (OSHA 29 CFR 1915) because that regulation coversthe competent person. Acknowledging that, the Committee affirmsthat NFPA 306 cannot or will not require the competent person touse the new designation. Additionally, the definitions and criteriagiven for both "Safe for Workers" and "Atmosphere Safe forWorkers" in 29 CFR 1915 and NFPA 306 remain identical.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: BENARD: The standard designation safe for workers is wellknown and understood in the maritime industry. The designationis also well defined in NFPA 306 and on the Certificate itself.OSHA regulations in Title 29 CFR part 1915 require the use of thisdesignation. Changing the designation would cause confusion byworkers, it would conflict with confined space entry requirementsin shipyards and would require retraining all workers involved inconfined space entry.

___________________

(Log #64)306- 33 - (2-3.1, 2-3.4, 2-3.6, 2-3.7, 2-3.11, 6-3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Joseph V. Daddura , Rep. U.S. Department ofLabor OSHACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-27RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: 2-2.1 SAFE PERMITTED FOR WORKERS requires that in thecompartment or space so designated the following criteria shall bemet:SUBSTANTIATION: Undue cost burden to employers. Tochange the safety designation to "Atmosphere Safe For Workers"would mean to retrain ALL employees. Unnecessary. Use "Safe forWorkers."COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee stands by thesubstantiation for the original proposal, and believes that the"Atmosphere Safe for Workers" designation more accuratelyreflects that aspect of safe entry criteria that the Marine Chemist isrequired to determine. The Committee also does not feel that thisis contradictory to the requirements in any existing federalregulation (OSHA 29 CFR 1915) because that regulation coversthe competent person. Acknowledging that, the Committee affirmsthat NFPA 306 cannot or will not require the competent person touse the new designation. Additionally, the definitions and criteriagiven for both "Safe for Workers" and "Atmosphere Safe forWorkers" in 29 CFR 1915 and NFPA 306 remain identical.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13

VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: BENARD: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment306-32 (Log #72).

___________________

(Log #1)306- 34 - (2-3.3): AcceptSUBMITTER: Martin H. Finkel , Environmental Safety & Health ofAlaskaCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-30RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposed change to the "EnterWith Restrictions" designation (2-3.3), and maintain the wordingfound in the 1997 Edition of NFPA-306.SUBSTANTIATION: Upon initial reading, the proposed changewould seem to be an enhancement of worker safety, since it givesthe marine chemist more tools to work with. However, when yousubject the proposal to detailed analysis, you find that the currentwording of section 2-3.3: "...entry for work shall be permitted onlyif conditions of proper protective equipment, or clothing, or time,or all of the aforementioned, are appropriate, are as specified."covers all of the possible controls that would be appropriate for anunsafe atmosphere. The proposed change would allow any number of unspecifiedengineering controls, such as ventilation, that are not appropriateto the "Enter With Restrictions" designation. To use ventilation assuch a control, when the atmosphere is currently unsafe (i.e.,above allowable concentrations of toxic vapor or less than 19.5percent oxygen) concerns me greatly. Does this mean that achemist may find that a tank’s atmosphere is unsafe (above PELlevels of some contaminant) and can then ask for the placement ofventilation and then write the cetificate and leave? Does this notmean that the chemist will anticipate that future conditions will bea certain way without having taken measurements of theatmospheric contaminant levels at that later time? In essence, this would be as if the marine chemist told theworkers that "this space will be safe in x minutes from now, so youdon’t need any PPE, just place this blower, which I hope movesthe contaminant out at the rate that I have calculated theoretically,and then, without any additional testing to confirm the conditionsunder which you will enter, just go in"? Because placingventilation as a means for providing for the protection of workersunder "enter with restrictions" means just that. Limiting the controls to respiratory protection (protectiveequipment), clothing, or time would mean that the specifiedcontrols take into account current conditions in the space, and notanticipate the improvement of atmospheric conditions at a latertime, as would be the case with engineering controls. Ifengineering controls improve the space’s atmospheric conditionsas to make it safe for worker entry, the appropriate designationwould be "Safe for Workers" and not "Enter With Restrictions." Leave the wording for "Enter With Restrictions" as it currentlyreads in section 2-3.3.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 ABSTENTION: 1EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: DADDURA: See my Explanation of Abstention on Comment306-1 (Log #37).

___________________

(Log #2)306- 35 - (2-3.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Martin H. Finkel , Environmental Safety & Health ofAlaskaCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-31RECOMMENDATION: Retain the current wording of 306-1977for this section and reject the proposed change.SUBSTANTIATION: Upon initial reading, the proposed changewould seem to be an enhancement of worker safety, since it givesthe marine chemist more tools to work with. However, when yousubject the proposal to detailed analysis, you find that the currentwording of section 2-3.3: "...entry for work shall be permitted onlyif conditions of proper protective equipment, or clothing, or time,or all of the aforementioned, are appropriate, are as specified."


516

covers all of the possible controls that would be appropriate for anunsafe atmosphere. The proposed change would allow any number of unspecifiedengineering controls, such as ventilation, that are not appropriateto the "Enter With Restrictions" designation. To use ventilation assuch a control, when the atmosphere is currently unsafe (i.e.,above allowable concentrations of toxic vapor or less than 19.5percent oxygen) concerns me greatly. Does this mean that achemist may find that a tank’s atmosphere is unsafe (above PELlevels of some contaminant) and can then ask for the placement ofventilation and then write the cetificate and leave? Does this notmean that the chemist will anticipate that future conditions will bea certain way without having taken measurements of theatmospheric contaminant levels at that later time? In essence, this would be as if the marine chemist told theworkers that "this space will be safe in x minutes from now, so youdon’t need any PPE, just place this blower, which I hope movesthe contaminant out at the rate that I have calculated theoretically,and then, without any additional testing to confirm the conditionsunder which you will enter, just go in"? Because placingventilation as a means for providing for the protection of workersunder "enter with restrictions" means just that. Limiting the controls to respiratory protection (protectiveequipment), clothing, or time would mean that the specifiedcontrols take into account current conditions in the space, and notanticipate the improvement of atmospheric conditions at a latertime, as would be the case with engineering controls. Ifengineering controls improve the space’s atmospheric conditionsas to make it safe for worker entry, the appropriate designationwould be "Safe for Workers" and not "Enter With Restrictions." Leave the wording for "Enter With Restrictions" as it currentlyreads in section 2-3.3.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-34 (Log #1). AMarine Chemist cannot issue a Safe for Workers certificate untilthe space has been determined to be safe under the requiredengineering control.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #54)306- 36 - (2-3.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Edward J. Willwerth, Atlantic Environmental &Marine Services, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-31RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows: "2-3.3 ENTER WITH RESTRICTIONS indicates that in all spacesso designated, one or more of the following restrictions(engineering, administrative or personal protective equipment)shall be written on the certificate."SUBSTANTIATION: Need for clarification. Ventilation, anengineering control, has always been allowed as a condition whenusing the designation SAFE FOR WORKERS. Does the abovemove by the committee mean that if, in the chemist’s opinion,ventilation is a required condition for his certification of the spacethat he must use ENTER WITH RESTRICTIONS?COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-34 (Log #1).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #65)306- 37 - (2-3.4 2-3.6, (4-3.5)): RejectSUBMITTER: Joseph V. Daddura , Rep. U.S. Deptartment ofLabor OSHACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-74RECOMMENDATION: Insert the underscored text in Section 4-3.5 of NFPA 306-1997: "4-3.5. All tanks. . . . with the requirements of either 2-3.1 or 2-3.3. For repair or alteration involving hot work, these spaces shallmeet the requirements of 2-3.4 or 2-3.6 and adjacentcompartments . . . .to meet the requirements of 2-3.8."SUBSTANTIATION: Keep existing text, OSHA requires theemployer to insure that there is a visual inspection in adjacentspaces. See 29 CFR 1915.12 (precautions before entering confinedand enclosed spaces and other dangerous atmospheres.)COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee stands by itssubstantiation to the original proposal and cannot determine anyadded benefit by requiring the Marine Chemist to visually inspectand test adjacent spaces to spaces that are only to be entered andno hot work is to be performed. It would also result in thecreation of unnecessary complications and economic burdens tothe industry.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #17)306- 38 - (2-3.6): RejectSUBMITTER: Alan Bonds, A. Bonds ChemistCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-37RECOMMENDATION: This proposal should be accepted aswritten.SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed deletion of Section C solvesthe problem. The new language is complex and does not allowrestricting of hot work on adjacent bulkheads.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee acknowledged thepotential for a hazardous situation to occur under the presentlanguage in the 1997 edition of the standard, and stands by theproposed change. The Committee seeks to further explain theintent of "limitations" as encountered when the Marine Chemistuses the Standard Safety Designation "Safe for Limited Hot Work."NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #70)306- 39 - (2-3.6): RejectSUBMITTER: Don Sly, Sound Testing IncCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-37RECOMMENDATION: Go back to old version because this is toocomplicated.SUBSTANTIATION: Very complicated. Can you imagine tryingto teach the new verbiage to a Shipyard Competent Person Class?If you’re worried about someone partially cleaning a diesel tank,write tank contents with flash point under 180°F outside thesection.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-38 (Log #17). The Committee acknowledged the potential for a hazardoussituation to occur under the present language in the 1997 editionof the standard, and stands by the proposed change. TheCommittee seeks to further explain the intent of "limitations" asencountered when the Marine Chemist uses the Standard SafetyDesignation "Safe for Limited Hot Work."NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #46)306- 40 - (2-3.7(a)): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Tom D. Littlepage, Gulf Marine Chemists, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-38RECOMMENDATION: Delete proposal, retain original text"below 8 percent or 50 percent of the amount required to supportcombustion, whichever is less."SUBSTANTIATION: 1. "Whichever is less" has provensatisfactory through the history of NFPA 306, there are no knownincidents. 2. Currently available data (NFPA 69) is insufficient for theapplication of the proposed revision: a. Data is only available for nitrogen and CO2, not for comonlyused shipboard inert gas systems, or, argon. b. Data is not available for commonly encountered productssuch as diesel, bunker oils, lube oils, crude, mixtures, slops, orunidentified materials.


517

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.The Committee elected to revise the comment, and change thenumerical amount of oxygen needed to support combustion from8 percent to 6 percent.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Based on a review of NFPA 69,Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems, the Committee felt thatindustry was routinely using 8 percent instead of determining 50percent of the amount of oxygen required to support combustion.The intent of NFPA 306 is to use 50 percentof the amount ofoxygen to support combustion (the majority of cargoes wouldrequire 6 percent or less). The Committee acknowledged that it issometimes difficult to determine the amount of oxygen required tosupport combustion of many substances, and approved the changefrom 8 percent to 6 percent based on the majority of cargoes.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #51)306- 41 - (2-3.8(a)): RejectSUBMITTER: Edward J. Willwerth, Atlantic Environmental &Marine Services, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-38RECOMMENDATION: In 2-3.8(a) delete "or below 8.0 percentor".SUBSTANTIATION: Several chemist’s have pointed out that themajor resource for finding what constitutes less than "50 percent ofthe oxygen requied to support combustion", (i.e., NFPA 69 -Explosion Prevention Systems, Appendix C) does not containthose levels of oxygen required for No. 6 oil, No. 2 oil or dieselfuel - the fuels most commonly addressed with inerting, nor does itcontain data for the use of argon or CO2/argon mixes (alsocommonly used in inerting). Until these data are available inNFPA 69, 8.0 percent serves as a good benchmark that has noknown history of problems. (Proposed Response - restore originallanguage).COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-40 (Log #46).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #52)306- 42 - (2-3.10(c)): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Edward J. Willwerth, Atlantic Environmental &Marine Services, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-27RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as folows: "2-3.10(c) All cargo tanks shall have been inerted to 50 percent ofthe oxygen required to support combustion, or less ."SUBSTANTIATION: The words "required" and "or less" wereprobably inadvertently left out of the ROP language - they need tobe introduced here to ensure that the reader knows a range ofoxygen levels from less than 50 percent of the amount needed tosupport combustion to zero percent are acceptable.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.The Committee revised this section to read as follows: 2-3.10 (c) All the cargo tanks are inerted to less than 6 percentoxygen, or 50 percent of the amount of oxygen required to supportcombustion, whichever is less.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-40 (Log #46).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: BEACHAM: I concur with the Committee’s recommendations tolower the definition of inertion from "8 percent oxygen or 50percent of the amount to support combustion" to "6 percentoxygen or 50 percent of the amount to support combustion" whenconsidering potential hot work against tanks, etc. My concern is placing this requirement on a vessel in layup status(i.e. not for hotwork). There is no apparent safety concern andthe potential exists that industry may not be able to meet thisconsistently. My recommendation is that the 8 percent number beretained for the SAFE FOR LAY-UP designation.

___________________

(Log #5)306- 43 - (2-4): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Gregory G. Grondin , Bath Iron WorksCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-45RECOMMENDATION: Delete the proposal entirely.SUBSTANTIATION: This is a very unrealistic request and wouldcause an unnecessary scheduling and financial burden to theshipyard. The scope of work is frequently unknown both by theMarine Chemist and the shipyard. For example: Navy overhaulsand conversions may have several hundred hot work operations ina single machinery space. A series of inspections called O & I’s(open and inspect) determine the scope of work. It may benecessary to remove a gas turbine prior to determining if thefoundation requires modification or to inspect a fire main pumpbefore determining if the piping needs replacement. In themeantime, machinery space bilges are cleaned and certified as arethe adjacent tanks. Why would the Chemist need to know that theturbine foundation has a crack or fire main piping needs to bereplaced? Mr. Corbin’s substantiation implies that the MarineChemist certificate should control ANY hazards that may begenerated. I believe this to be a misinterpretation of 306 as aMarine Chemist would have to be on site, full time, to make thistype of assessment. The Chemist would have to considermonitoring welding fume exposures, dust and metal exposuresfrom paint removal operations, and solvent exposures when thepaint is reapplied, just to name a few. These are clearly theresponsibility of the shipyard and are specifically covered by OSHAstandards. For the most part they are Shipyard Competent Personsduties. If a Chemist feels it necessary to provide limitations orrestrictions within a space the vehicle to do that is the standardsafety designations, "Enter With Restrictions" or "Safe For LimitedHot Work".COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-52 (Log #59).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #13)306- 44 - (2-4): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert F. Corbin, Commandant (G-MSO-3) U.S.Coast GuardCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-45RECOMMENDATION: Add explanatory material in Appendix Ato provide guidance on including scope of work on the Certificate. Recommend the following: "A-2-4.? The scope of work can be listed in broad or specificterms as deemed appropriate by the Marine Chemist based on theintended work and condition of the space(s). The intention is toprevent unanticipated work from being conducted without beingevaluated by the Marine Chemist, by stating the scope of work inwriting, as understood at the time of the inspection." SUBSTANTIATION: The committee should be commended foraccepting this proposal, which should greatly increase the safety ofwork in confined spaces by preventing unauthorized work fromoccurring in confined spaces. Marine Chemists are required todetermine that a space is and should remain safe for the intendedwork authorized by the Certificate. It is in the best interest of theMarine Chemist to therefore list the scope of work which he hasauthorized. This is also important for third parties entering thespace to know what work is authorized, since they are not privy toany information passed between the person requesting theCertificate and the Marine Chemist.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.The Committee voted to reject the comment, but will add anasterisk to 2-4.3 and refer to an Annex Item which will read asfollows: A-2-4.3 If there is no additional statement regarding the scope ofthe work on the Certificate, any hot work or cold work mayproceed as indicated by the standard safety designation. If all typesof work cannot be conducted safely under a standard safetydesignation, then the authorized work or prohibited work shouldbe listed on the Certificate.


518

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee decided not torequire that the Marine Chemist include the scope of work (seeComment 306-52 (Log #59)), hence this comment to include anAnnex item will not be accepted. Many commenters objected to the original proposal to includethe scope of work. See Comments 306-50 (Log #50), 306-74 (Log#48), 306-48 (Log #41), 306-47 (Log #39), and 306-1 (Log #37),and others for additional information.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #32)306- 45 - (2-4): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: David J. Miller , Marine Enviornment Testing, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-45RECOMMENDATION: Delete the accepted portion of commentas follows: "The certificate shall include the scope of work that is authorizedand the ventilation and/or other requirements to maintainconditions within the space."SUBSTANTIATION: The addition of the scope of work to thecertificate will only produce a cluttered document that will lead toconfusion and errors. If the marine chemist has a concernregarding the safety of a space he can limit the scope using the"safe for limited hot work" designation. Otherwise, if he writes a"safe for hot work" certificate there should be no limit on the hotwork allowed.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-52 (Log #59).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #35)306- 46 - (2-4): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: James P. Bruff, Marine Chemist Service, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-45RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: "The certificate shall include the scope of work that is authorizedand the ventilation and/or other requirements necessary tomaintain conditions within the space."SUBSTANTIATION: If the scope of work changes, i.e., from aninspection to some other cold work, would this void thecertificate? I often do not put on my certificate the scope, howeverto require it simply may not be possible. You may also find verygeneral statements such as, "General Repairs" which adds nothingto the certificate or to safety. Secondly, if the marine chemist statesthat only ventilation is needed for entry into the space, this will notstop changes on conditions and may even lead to a belief thatconditions cannot change if we simply do what the marine chemiststated on the certificate. Simply put, this statement increases ourliability and decreases safety.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-52 (Log #59).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #39)306- 47 - (2-4): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Phil Payton , Coastal Towing, Inc,COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-45RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal.SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal would require numerousrechecks by the marine chemist. This should be deleted orchanged to allow the marine chemist to state the scope in broadterms.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-52 (Log #59).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #41)306- 48 - (2-4): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Douglas R. Halsey, Marine Safety ServicesCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-45RECOMMENDATION: I request that you disaprove the proposedamendment.SUBSTANTIATION: I request that you consider the followingcomments regarding the referenced proposal. I am familiar with NFPA 306, as well as Coast Guard regulationswhich requires that hot work aboard vessels be accomplished inaccordance with the provisions of the Gas Free Certificate. Thecontents of NFPA 306 now adequately address the inspections andconditions required prior to issuance of a Gas Free Certificate, aswell as the endorsements to be used by the marine chemist. I now work primarily in the inland marine industry, where tankbarges constitute the bulk of work covered by NFPA 306. It hasbeen my experience that when an inland tank barge has beenissued a certificate based on the requirements of those guidelinesthere is little or no misunderstanding of what is authorized orwhen it might be appropriate for a marine chemist to be recalled.Modification to the scope of work is not an item which wouldordinarily require a second visit by a marine chemist after theentire vessel has been inspected and found to be safe for hot workin every space, so long as those conditions are maintained. Thedaily inspection by a designated competent person is the methodused to assure compliance with the Gas Free Certificate and thisprocedure works well. If a limited certificate is issued therequirement already exists for the chemist to be recalled and makeadditional tests prior to authorizing additional hot work. I understand that this simple procedure may not work as wellwhen a ship with extensive subdivision where adjacent spaces ortank boundaries might be more difficult to identify and accuratelyaddress when writing the certificate, but the proposed amendmentdoes not address that specific situation. I am not aware of anyproblem similar to that addressed by the proposal at any shipyardwhich works primarily with tank barges. If there is a documented problem which exists throughout asegement of the ship repair industry, I suggest that segment shouldbe identified and any proposed amendment be directed onlytoward that problem area. It is neither necessary nor desirable toimpose blanket standards, which significantly increase costs whileproducing no benefit to the consumer. It may be appropriate for the committee to consider thesignificant differences in ship repair versus barge repair anddetermine if a separate standard might be appropriate for ships, orif ship owners should be required to provide current and accuratedrawings for review by the marine chemist prior to issuance of aGas Free Certificate. The proposal, as written, would significantly increase costs to thevessel owner, generate dead time in a shipyard while waiting for achemist, and would contribute to inefficiency within the marinetransportation industry. In my opinion, the proposed amendment would not make acontribution to safety within the inland shipyard industry.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-52 (Log #59).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #49)306- 49 - (2-4): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Thomas Beacham, Lyon ShipyardCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-45RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal.SUBSTANTIATION: Adequate controls are already in place tocontrol limited hot work situations. This was the purpose andintent of the SAFE FOR LIMITED HOT WORK designation whenit was adopted in the current 306 revision. To require the degreeof detail suggested by this proposal would in effect wipe out theSAFE FOR HOT WORK designation as everything would be SAFEFOR LIMITED HOT WORK. Such a requirement would beimpractical and cost prohibitive to industry and not increase safetyperformance. Recommend deletion and keep current fieldpractices by the marine chemist in place.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-52 (Log #59).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________


519

(Log #50)306- 50 - (2-4): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Kimble R. Lehman, National Maintenance &Repair, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-45RECOMMENDATION: None.SUBSTANTIATION: As a Marine Chemist (certificate number603) currently serving on the Marine Chemist Qualification Board,and the president of three shipyards - National Maintenance &Repair, Inc., Hartford, Illinois; National Maintenance & Repair ofKentucky, Inc., Paduca, Kentucky, and National Maintenance &Repair of Louisiana, Inc., Harahan, Louisiana, I would like torespond to the referenced proposal to add a paragraph underSection 2-4, Preparation of Certificates. The proposed addition to this paragraph would not provideadditional safety, but would, however, add a financial burden onour customers and the industry as a whole. The first sentence of the above-referenced paragraph wouldrequire subsequent visit(s) by the marine chemist to any marinevessel where the scope of work changes. In my 30 years in themarine industry, I have experienced most repairs change in scope.As work progresses undiscovered damage is detected, and subjectto customer approval is usually added to the original job scope. Before any work is performed, a marine chemist must test andinspect a vessel and subsequently issue a marine chemist certificatestating the determined conditions. When the designatedauthorization of "Safe for Hot Work" on the marine chemistcertificate is used, there is no need for subsequent re-issuance of anew certificate just because of a change in the original job scope.If the space is not safe for hot work, other designations may beused and acknowledged on the certificate, which limits work to beperformed.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-52 (Log #59).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #58)306- 51 - (2-4): RejectSUBMITTER: Jeffrey L. Greer, Marine Inspection ServicesCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-45RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: "The Certificate shall include the scope of work that is authorizedand the ventilation and/or other requirements necessary tomaintain conditions within the space. The scope of the work shallbe described in specific or general terms, as deemed necessary bythe marine chemist."SUBSTANTIATION: This is a needed proposal. It reinforces therequirement spelled out in 2.2.2 (b) "Nature and the extent of thework" The marine chemist should have the discretion to cite the degreeof specificity he deems proper after making the inspection in thefield.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-52 (Log #59). The Committee recognizes that the use of the Standard SafetyDesignation Atmosphere Safe for Workers authorizes entry toaccomplish any cold work operation in accordance with anyapplicable regulations unless specified otherwise on the MCCertificate.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: BENARD: The scope of work should be listed on the Certificateto prevent unintended work from being conducted in the space.Many activities that can be conducted under the "SAFE FORWORKERS" designation can easily create hazards in the space thatcannot be evaluated unless the marine chemist is aware of theactivities at the time of the inspection. Some of these activitiesinclude mucking, cleaning, painting, or other actions that eitherregenerate a hazard or introduce a new hazard. If a marinechemist is told that they want to enter the tank for inspection andhe issues a certificate for SAFE FOR WORKERS, nothing preventsthe shipyard from performing the other activities. This couldresult in a serious safety hazard. By using the SAFE FORWORKERS designation the marine chemist is stating that all coldwork can be conducted within the space without regeneration of ahazard and this is not always the case.

___________________

(Log #59)306- 52 - (2-4): AcceptSUBMITTER: Christopher Scott, Marine Chemists of LouisianaCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-45RECOMMENDATION: Delete text that follows: The certificate shall include the scope of work that is authorizedand the ventilation and/or other requirements necessary tomaintain conditions within the space.SUBSTANTIATION: This revision will place an untold burdenon the marine chemist and the marine industry as a whole. Theramifications of this proposal would force the marine chemist tohand write (or type) the entire set of repair specs on his certificate.In cases where minor hot work for minor repairs covering one ortwo spaces is involved, this requirement does not appearimpractical. In fact, it is already covered under "Safe for LimitedHot Work". However, consider tankers and military vessels wheredozens of spaces are tested and certified on a single certificate.The requirement to have the marine chemist write the scope of thework on/in all of those spaces is ridiculous. The entire certificateand several continuation sheets would contain nothing but repairspecifications. The other extreme is the tank barge that has beencompletely cleaned and gas free and is capable of having virtuallyany repair undertaken without adverse results. It would not matterwhat work was conducted or where it was conducted on this vessel.The bottom line is the requirement to write the scope of the workon the certificate would only serve to clutter the certificate andconfuse the individuals it is intended to serve, without increasingthe level of safety in the repair industry. I am asking that this proposed language be eliminated from thestandard.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #60)306- 53 - (2-4): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: D. John Nichols, Mississippi Marine CorporationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-45RECOMMENDATION: We respectively request that you eliminatethe entire proposal No. 306-44-(2-4).SUBSTANTIATION: I appreciate the opportunity to commenton the proposed addition of a paragraph under the subject Section2.4, Preparation of Certificates. I am involved in the managementof an inland shipyard, which specializes in cleaning, gas freeingand repairing inland tank barges. Our yard is situatedapproximately half way between the upper and lower majorturning points of the lower Mississippi River Line Boats. Ourlocation is such that it is inconvenient for barges to be droppedout of tow for us to perform repair services to. The majorattraction we have to cause the barges to be dropped in our area isour ability to work on them at an attractive cost to our customersand our extreme efforts to always work safely and be totallycompliant with all environmental regulations. A review of the proposed addition to a paragraph under Section2-4 reveals that it will: (1) Add no additional safety elements to the work that we do,and (2) Will significantly increase the cost to our customers of thework we do for them.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-52 (Log #59).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #62)306- 54 - (2-4): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Terry Guidry, Bollinger Shipyards, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-45RECOMMENDATION: Reject.SUBSTANTIATION: We will be adding an undue burden on analready limited resource of marine chemist. To have a chemistcome out each time the scope of work changes will be adding


520

stress, fatigue and complacency to their personal well-being, aswell as their work performance. By adding this language, we willbe promoting the often argued issue of "a certificate ofconvenience." It will also affect the industry by adding to the cost of repair jobs.The industry has always relied on the judgment of the marinechemist to inform the SCP on conditions for recall. In the past,this mutual relationship has often lead to lower cost for ourmarine customers. By requiring marine chemist to return each time, the scope ofwork changes will have a negative effect on how repair work ishandled in the future. Therefore, we should not approve 306-45recommendation.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-52 (Log #59).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #68)306- 55 - (2-4): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Don Sly, Sound Testing IncCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-45RECOMMENDATION: Delete proposed language making uschemists detail work for which certificate was written. For many(25 percent) certificates the type of hot work for which thecertificate was written has no effect on whether the vessel is safe ornot, and hence is of no interest to the chemist or the competentperson. If it is of interest, we are already mandated to make noteof the nature of the repairs and the limitations they demand.SUBSTANTIATION: Forcing us to note items which have nofunction in reality will only clutter a document which is alreadycomplicated, and make such items less effective when reallyneeded, as they take on the aspect of boilerplate.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-52 (Log #59).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #73)306- 56 - (2-4): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Roy L. Lutz, Jr., Bath, MECOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-45RECOMMENDATION: Delete the following text: "include scopeof work that is authorized"SUBSTANTIATION: It should not be necessary to list scope ofwork on the certificate. When a space is certified "safe for hotwork" any type of work should be permitted. It would becumbersome to list all jobs in scope of workCOMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-52 (Log #59).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #75)306- 57 - (2-4): RejectSUBMITTER: John L. Holland, U.S. Coast Guard Marine SafetyOffice HoustonCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-45RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to read as follows: The scope of work shall be permitted to be stated in "generalterms."SUBSTANTIATION: "Scope of work" is not defined, and couldtherefore be interpreted as line item specific. This would forcecertificate re-issue as new repairs become necessary.Shipyard/barge representatives, in anticipation of this fact, couldrequest that a Coast Guard inspector be present at time of initialsurvey to agree on repair proposals. This could place an undueburden on an already thin inspections force.

COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-52 (Log #59).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #76)306- 58 - (2-4): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: John Sansing , National Maintenance & RepairCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-45RECOMMENDATION: Please consider eliminating the entireProposal 306-45 (2-4)SUBSTANTIATION: It is not necessary to modify the language inSection 2-4; it adds no additional safety. It does however add aheavy financial burden on the industry. It will add subjectiveinterpretation by inexperienced regulatory personnel, i.e. theUnited States Coast Guard, and OSHA as to what the "Scope ofWork" means and how well it has been detailed by the MarineChemist. As a practicing Marine Chemist one of the first questions I ask is"What type of work do you want to do?" when requested to test andinspect a vessel. After testing and inspecting a Marine ChemistCertificate is issued stating conditions found. We do not need tofill the limited space of a Marine Chemist Certificate with "Scopeof Work" details. We also do not need to be re-called to re-issuean additional certificate when unlimited hot work was authorizedby "Safe for Hot Work" designation, just because the "Scope ofWork" may have been changed. If a space or tank is not safe for unlimited hot work, we alreadyhave in place the term "Safe for Limited Hot" and the limitationsare spelled out on the Certificate by the Marine Chemist.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-52 (Log #59).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #18)306- 59 - (2-4 (New) ): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Alan Bonds, A. Bonds ChemistCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-45RECOMMENDATION: Reject proposal entirely.SUBSTANTIATION: I feel the Marine Chemist has the toolsavailable to limit work if needed. (SLHW) Listing the scope of hotwork on a gas free certificate will not increase the level of safety.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-52 (Log #59).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #24)306- 60 - (2-4 (New) ): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Gerald A. Gallion , Kirby CorporationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-45RECOMMENDATION: Add a new paragraph under Section 2-4,Preparation of Certificates to read as follows: "The Certificate shall include the scope of work that is authorizedand the ventilation and/or other requirements necessary tomaintain conditions within the space. If continuous ventilation isnot required during entry, then it should be so noted on thecertificate."SUBSTANTIATION: In our view, the addition of the proposedparagraph would, without justification, impose a significant,unnecessary burden on the barge and towing industry. In its Report on Proposals, the Committee on Gas Hazardsaccepted the first sentence of the proposal quoted above but notthe second sentence. Kirby agrees with the Committee withrespect to the second sentence but strongly urges the Committee toreject the first sentence of the proposal, as well. In particular,Kirby objects to the provisions of the first sentence of the proposal


521

which would require the Marine Chemist to include the authorizedscope of work on the Certificate, which, implicitly would requirethe Marine Chemist to re-examine the vessel covered by theCertificate every time the scope of work changes in any respect. Asa practical matter, in our experience with the repair of inland tankbarges, the scope of work frequently changes during the course ofrepairs (e.g., the discovery of additional fractures, broken welds.etc.) without adversely effecting the conditions within the space(s)covered by the Certificate. Requiring the Marine Chemist to returnto the vessel to add such details to the specified scope of workwould add no safety value to the course of repairs but would,unnecessarily, add cost in terms of additional Marine Chemist fees,shipyard time, shipyard labor costs, and lost revenues. NFPA 306 is a safety standard, a standard for the control of gashazards on vessels. However, there is no safety justification for theproposal. We submit that there is no casualty data to support theproposed change to the existing standard. Indeed, the existingstandard adequately addresses the issues of concern. Section 2.2requires the Marine Chemist to determine the nature and extent ofthe work prior to the issuance of a Certificate. Paragraph 2-4.3requires the Marine Chemist to specify any precautions necessaryto eliminate or minimize hazards that could be present from theprotective coatings or residues from cargoes in the areas where thework is to be done. "Ship repairing, shipbuilding, andshipbreaking" are generally subject to the provision of 29 CFR Part1915. Section 1915.7 governs the designation of competentpersons. Section 1915.15 prescribes the requirements for themaintenance of safe conditions in vessel spaces that have beendesignated "Safe for Workers" or "Safe for Hot Work" on theCertificate issued by the Marine Chemist. In pertinent part, thisSection provides: "A competent person shall visually inspect andtest each space certified as ‘Safe for Workers’ or ‘Safe for HotWork’, as often as necessary to ensure that atmospheric conditionswithin that space is maintained within the conditions establishedby the Certificate after the Certificate has been issued. .. If acompetent person finds that the atmospheric conditions within acertified space fail to meet the applicable requirements of sections1915.12, 1915.13, and 1915.14 of this part, (the relevant regulationsgoverning the safety of confined spaces for entry by workers and forhot work), work in the certified space shall be stopped and maynot be resumed until the space has been retested by a MarineChemist...and a new Certificate issued..." The combination of the existing standard and the regulatoryrequirements setting forth the duties of the competent personmore than adequately ensure that, where an actual change inconditions within the space covered by a Certificate, work in thespace will be stopped and the safety of the workers and the vesselin question will be preserved by the retesting of the space by theMarine Chemist and the issuance of a new Certificate withappropriate precautions dictated by the detected change. Theproposed requirement that the Certificate include the scope ofwork authorized would likely have the same result, however, itwould require the attendance of the Marine Chemist at the vesselin many instances where no change in conditions, or adverse effecton the safety of workers or the vessel, has resulted from a changein that scope of work. The proposal simply adds no safety value. The Committee should note that Kirby’s interest is primarily withrespect to inland tank barges. These vessels are of simple designand construction and are routinely cleaned and gas-freed inpreparation for repairs in a manner that permits hot workanywhere in the vessel. Perhaps the submitter of the proposal isconcerned with the deep-draft, self-propelled vessels of morecomplex construction. Lastly, we would like for the Committee to appreciate thecommercial impact of the proposal. Kirby has budgeted in excessof $36 million in planned tank barge maintenance and repairprojects for the year 2000, based on the existing NFPA 306Standard. Kirby’s vessel repair vendors are a representative cross-section of the inland vessel repair industry. Kirby has surveyedthose vendors and are advised that the labor costs associated withKirby’s maintenance and repair schedule will increase by at least 5percent if the proposal is accepted by NFPA, as a result of theadditional man hours required to comply with the scope of worklimitations to be included in Certificates issued by MarineChemists. Based on Kirby’s 2000 maintenance and repair budget,that 5 percent increase in labor costs is approximately $962,000. Inaddition, the proposal, if accepted, will result in a doubling of theMarine Chemist fees paid by Kirby in connection with repairs,according to our vessel repair vendors. Based on our 2000 budget,that increase in such costs would be approximately $90,000.Further, as Kirby’s vessel repair vendors have a finite capacity forvessel repair work, the proposal, if accepted, will extend the timenecessary for completion of repairs and, accordingly, result in the

loss of revenue which would otherwise be generated during thatperiod. Again, based on our 2000 budget, that loss of revenuewould add an additional $36,500 to the adverse impact of theproposal. Even without the inclusion of other ancillary costswhich would result if the proposal is accepted, it should beapparent to the Committee that the impact of the proposal on thebarge industry would be unreasonable and unjustified.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-52 (Log #59).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #61)306- 61 - (2-4 (New) ): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Jess McCluer, Shipbuilders Council of America(SCA)COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-45RECOMMENDATION: Reject entire proposal.SUBSTANTIATION: The Shipbuilders Council of America(SCA) would like to provide input to the development of theNFPA 306 Technical Committee on Gas Hazards proposal No.306-45-(2-4) from 2001 ROP. SCA is the national trade association representing commercialshipyard companies engaged in shipbuilding, ship repair andcleaning. SCA represents 50 shipyard companies, which own andoperate over 100 shipyards in 22 states. SCA members employ over35,000 shipyard workers, that is over 70 percent of the total U.S.shipyard workers primarily engaged in commercial shipyardactivity. Since SCA’s formation in 1920, the Council has beencommitted to providing a safe workplace without adding undueeconomic burdens on the industry as a whole. SCA shares the NFPA’s goals of protecting the safety of theemployees and commends the NFPA for its continued effort towork with industry groups in this process. However, SCA isconcerned that the current proposal to modify the language inSection 2-4 will impose considerable costs on companies that werepresent, and that it will inappropriately divert resources andattention from issues that have a more substantial impact on safety.In particular, The Council is concerned that members engaged,primarily, in tank barge cleaning and repair will be affected themost by these changes. For these and other reasons, stated below,we respectfully urge the NFPA to reconsider the 306-45-(2-4)proposal to which it seems committed. The Council has long placed a great emphasis on safety withinthe shipyard. These efforts have been motivated by a variety ofconsiderations. They include, of course, our legal and moralobligation to provide safe and healthy workplaces to ouremployees, but also our need to enhance productivity through theregular attendance of healthy and comfortable employees. NFPA 306 2.2 (a) requires that a repair and/or cleaning facilitywould have to provide the marine chemist with the nature and"scope of work" to be performed. Simply, adding the "scope ofwork" to a marine chemist safety certificate will not automaticallyincrease level of safety. Since the certificate has to be posted so thatworkers can read it before entering the work area, several pagesdescribing the "scope of work" in a major vessel repair mayactually cause more hazard because the extra pages of descriptionmay make it more difficult for workers to understand exactly whereit is safe to work and where it is not safe to work. In addition, this proposal could cause an increase in operatingcosts because it is often common for the "scope of work" tochange several times after the repair and/or cleaning process hasbegun. This may require several visits by a chemist which couldcause a delay in production along with idled workers. In conclusion, SCA is deeply concerned about the imposition ofpossible costly changes that could raise operating costs anddecrease the safety of employees in many of our member’sfacilities. SCA would be pleased to further address any of thecomments contained herein.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-52 (Log #59).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________


522

(Log #14)306- 62 - (2-4.5): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert F. Corbin, Commandant (G-MSO-3) U.S.Coast GuardCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-50RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the Committee reconsiderthe original proposal or develop alternate wording to ensure thatall valid Certificates for a given space are listed on the most recentCertificate.SUBSTANTIATION: For a Marine Chemist to properly evaluatethe scope of work for a given space it is imperative that they knowwhat other work may have been authorized on previousCertificates. Fore example, you could have one Marine Chemistauthorizing entry for painting while another authorizes hot work,each of which by themselves may be safe to conduct, but ifconducted together could be catastrophic. By listing all othervalid Certificates on the most recent Certificate you are by defaultvoiding any other Certificates that were not listed.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee viewed thiscomment as impractical for large jobs on large vessels (aircraftcarriers, etc), and stated that this demonstrates a need for dailyinspections of the entire vessel with all spaces listed on theCertificate, where practical.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: BENARD: This proposal makes sense in that there is a need toknow which Certificate accurately reflects the conditions of a givenspace when multiple Certificates are issued on a vessel. Theprimary argument given to reject the proposal was that the logisticsto do this on some vessels would be too difficult. I would suggestthat if the vessel or yard representative cannot currently track thisinformation then the requirement is needed even more. I believethe committee needs to revisit this proposal and develop a solutionto this potentially serious safety problem.

___________________

(Log #7)306- 63 - (2-6): RejectSUBMITTER: Gregory G. Grondin , Bath Iron WorksCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-56RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraphs (d) and (e) and reviseparagraph (c) to read as follows: "All certified spaces shall be inspected by the ShipyardCompetent Person as often as necessary in accordance with 29CFR 1915.15, unless otherwise stated on the certificate."SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA 306 is a voluntary standard and is notenforceable. 29 CFR 1915 is than applicable/enforceabledocument and it does not specify any reinspection frequency forthe Shipyard Competent Person other than "as often as necessary". Point #1 Paragraph 1-4 (Governmental Regulations) of NFPA 306 states: "Nothing in this standard shall be construed as supersedingexisting requirements of any governmental or local authority."That is precisely what this proposal does. It sets a formalreinspection frequency where none had previously existed in thegovernmental regulation. It will also cause a significant amount ofconfusion, as the public may wonder why NFPA is defining whatOSHA, for years, has refused to do. We should fear that this couldbe viewed as a new method for CMC’s to generate additional work,especially in light of the fact that we already have the authority todictate on our certificates what we feel is the appropriateinspection frequency. Point #2 It is apparent that the wording in the proposal mirrors what wasincorporated into the NAVSEA standard items (009-07, 009-35, 009-70) in 1999. Simply because the US Navy is willing to pay for aspecified frequency of Competent Person’s testing does notindicate that all customers will feel the same. This is a contractualissue between the Shipyard and the Navy, which means it can bewaived at any time by a simple phone call, is not invoked on allNavy contracts and can be changed on a yearly basis at the SSRACmeeting. Once incorporated into NFPA 306 it dictates to theworld that the certificate is void when the testing protocol is notfollowed. How will we ever know? And if we know that theinspection is not taking place what do we do? Fact is: Once wehave issued a certificate and left the vessel it is the employer’sresponsibility to maintain conditions.

This proposal will give the public a negative perception of MarineChemists.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee stands by itssubstantiation for the original proposal, and reiterates the need forretesting by the competent person following up a Marine ChemistCertificate at least every 24 hours. The Committee deliberated atlength over this issue, and received significant input that shows thatthe practice of retesting spaces that have been certificated by aMarine Chemist at least daily is a long-standing, universal, andcommon standard operating procedure in the maritime industry.Inclusion of this requirement in the standard would therefore notpresent an additional burden while maintaining a higher degree ofsafety.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #69)306- 64 - (2-6.1(a)): AcceptSUBMITTER: Don Sly, Sound Testing IncCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-56RECOMMENDATION: I strongly recommend that theCommittee return to the 2.6(a) wording of 306-97, by deletingmention of "owner or their representative" as people who have theduty of calling the Marine Chemist.SUBSTANTIATION: Problem #1: By the addition of "owner ortheir representative" as people who have the duty of calling theMarine Chemist, the Committee endorses a plain conflict ofinterest, Three things are important when safety measures aredecided on: 1. Of first importance; the safety of the ship repair workers,whom NFPA 306 protects. 2. Of secondary importance: the safety of the vessel in question. 3. A distant third: the cost of safety measures to the vesselowners. Keeping this priority straight is a sacred part of running a safeship repair operation. That is why the legal stance of OSHA in(CFR 1915) puts all safety responsibilities in the hands of "TheEmployer", and why NFPA follows suit by calling on the "VesselRepairer" -- obviously the employer of the ship repair workers -- toarrange for the Chemist Certificate. The Committee Action vis-à-vis Proposal 306-56 turns thesepriorities upside down because you empower the vessel owner (orhis representative) to call the chemist. Beyond discussion, theirmost immediate concern is their bottom line. The employees arenot their employees, and so the owners have no legal obligation tothem. Moreover, if the vessel is harmed it will be the shipyard whopays the bill. This conflict of interest is baldly illustrated when, as sometimeshappens, a chemist is dismissed from a job because he demandssafety measures over an owner’s objections. Or, when an owner’srepresentative "shops around" for a chemist who will be more"flexible" than the troublesome local chemist the shipyard usuallyhires. (It is striking how much cheaper is plane fare than cleaninga bunker tank.) It used to be that the marine field service fought these practiceswhenever such was reported. Now, however, by endorsing thevessel owner as someone who should be concerned with callingthe chemist, you are endorsing a conflict of interest which literallyputs the safety of ship repair employees last. Problem #2: Your changing of 2-6.1 has nothing to do with theoriginal language of Proposal 306-56. In fact, it seems like agratuitous editorial change by some interested party. Does this notviolate the spirit and practice of the proposal process.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #56)306- 65 - (2-6.2): RejectSUBMITTER: David Bennett, Newport News ShipbuildingCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-56RECOMMENDATION: Committee action revising section 2.6 inNFPA 306-1997 is unnecessarily restrictive and reduces theemployer’s flexibility for providing a safe and healthy workenvironment in a cost-effective manner. The committee’srecommendations to revise paragraph 2.6.2, Maintaining the


523

Certificate, to include the following proposed paragraphs (c) and(d), will require Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS) to performtens of thousands of inspections at tremendous cost with a limitedor no increase in safety. NNS recommends that proposedparagraphs (c) and (d) be deleted from the proposed revisions. Delete text as follows: (c) All spaces certified shall be reinspected by the CompetentPerson or person recognized by the authority having jurisdiction,as applicable, at least every 24 hours, or more often as necessary inaccordance with 29 CFR 1915.15, Maintenance of Conditions,unless otherwise stated on the certificate. (d) The 24 hour period is permitted to be extended up to 72hours during non-working periods. Following a non-workingperiod, the Competent Person shall personally determine theconditions of all spaces listed on the Certificate prior to entry orwork.SUBSTANTIATION: With respect to how frequently a competentperson should reinspect a space to ensure maintenance of safeconditions: The current wording within 29 CFR 1915 allows the necessaryflexibility for employers to consider the proper frequency forinspections. In 29 CFR 1915.15(c) OSHA states that "A competentperson shall visually inspect and test each space certified as "Safefor Workers" or "Safe for Hotwork" as often as necessary to ensurethat atmospheric conditions within that space are maintainedwithin the conditions established by the certificate after thecertificate has been issued." The NFPA 306 standard should not bein conflict with OSHA’s standard by removing the competentperson’s flexibility to determine the frequency necessary tomaintain the certificate when not specified by the marine chemist.The proposed revision to NFPA 306 essentially bypasses OSHA’srulemaking process, but has the impact of law because OSHAstandard requires the services of a marine chemist, yet the marinechemist is bound by NFPA 306. The marine chemist depends on the competent person toreinspect these spaces periodically to ensure conditions have notchanged. Checking controlled spaces that are not being worked isunnecessary and burdensome to our company. The alternative ofhaving a marine chemist personally reinspect the space is alsounnecessary and burdensome to our company. Competent personsat NNS are highly qualified and capable of determining ifconditions have changed. Our training and adherence to our work procedures provide forthe safe and healthy completion of tasks by NNS personnel. Ourwork force is highly trained and our work is governed by policiesand procedures that often exceed the industry standards whenwarranted. Newport News Shipbuilding competent persons arehighly trained personnel, have no other collateral duties toperform, and have been performing their duties for an averageexceeding ten years per staff member. NNS requires that allconfined spaces be evaluated before employees are initiallyallowed to enter. NNS requires confined spaces to use exhaustventilation for all operations and in some instances ourprocedures require the use of both supply and low point exhaustventilation within confined spaces. These confined spaces require periodic reevaluation as workcontinues in the space. Confined spaces may present differinghazards and need to be periodically reevaluated on an individualbasis. The frequency of confined space inspection and testing maychange as work proceeds within a confined space. - Some conditions and activities may require continuous checkingof confined spaces by workers wearing confined space monitors,such as tank cleaning or spray painting where flammable vaporsmay be produced as a result of the work activity. Work involvingCHT (sewage) systems and confined spaces in or near inertingoperations are other activities requiring workers to havecontinuous passive monitoring for hazards other than flammablevapors. - Work in confined spaces adjacent to inert spaces and/orpipelines may require shipyard competent person tests andinspections of affected confined spaces each shift. - Other conditions may require checking every 24 hours, such asconfined spaces which are clean of product, but which do nothave continuous forced air ventilation. - On the other hand, periods longer than 24 hours may beappropriate in circumstances where a confined space does notcontain a hazardous substance, is not connected to a system whichcontains a hazardous substance, and has continuous forced airventilation. - Furthermore, when work within a space is temporarily haltedand no work is being scheduled, continual 24-hour checks areunnecessary. When work is again scheduled within the tank, our

competent persons test and inspect the space again to determinethat no change in conditions have occurred. These paragraphs will require our competent persons to checkspaces regardless of whether the spaces are being worked or not.Newport News Shipbuilding builds, repairs, and overhauls nuclearaircraft carriers and submarines. An aircraft carrier has more than1100 confined spaces and the repair and overhaul process may takeseveral years. A time limit of 24 hours imposed on confined spacescovered is unnecessarily restrictive and will result in excessive costto the customer and needless production delays.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The paragraphs in question(Section 206) address the inspections of a competent person onlyas they are required to support the maintenance of a MarineChemist Certificate. The Committee again stands by its substantiation for the originalproposal, and reiterates the need for retesting by the competentperson following up a Marine Chemist Certificate at least every 24hours. The Committee deliberated at length over this issue, andreceived significant input that shows that the practice of retestingspaces that have been certificated by a Marine Chemist at leastdaily is a long-standing, universal, and common standardoperating procedure in the maritime industry. Inclusion of thisrequirement in the standard would therefore not present anadditional burden while maintaining a higher degree of safety.Add also to substantiation for Comment 306-63 (Log #7).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #38)306- 66 - (2-6.2 and 2-6.3): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Thomas Beacham, Lyon ShipyardCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-55RECOMMENDATION: 1. Add sentences to the end of 2-6.2 toread as follows: Under no circumstance shall the certificate be represented by thecertificate holder to be transferable to any other vessel repairer,ship breaker, or vessel builder unless authorized by the marinechemist on the certificate. 2. Add text to end of 2-6.3 to read as follows: "...by the vessel repairer, ship breaker, or vessel builder" SUBSTANTIATION: Proposal 306-47 (Log #11) was originallysubmitted in the wrong place of the standard. The author feelsthat new language is more precise and clearer.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.Add text to read as follows: "2-6.2 Maintaining the Certificate. In order for the Certificate tobe maintained, the following conditions shall be met by the vesselrepairer, ship breaker, vessel builder, or owner or theirrepresentative."COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee wanted to eliminatesafety problems that could occur if a certificate issued specificallyfor one company were written to accomodate the expected oranticipated work that might be performed by another company orcontractor. The issue of determining the scope of the work isimportant.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #71)306- 67 - (2-6.4): RejectSUBMITTER: Don Sly, Sound Testing IncCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-59RECOMMENDATION: Delete proposed change.SUBSTANTIATION: Defining the two locations permitting hotwork/entry by the same certificate as "contiguous" will be ahardship for certain owners, both locally and in Alaska. Aneedless hardship for two reasons: 1) No one has ever explainedthe impact of location on the safety of a deck-cargo barge. Is theresuch an impact? The chemist already has the tools to restrictmovement if he feels it necessary. 2) Given your new 306-basedemphasis on the competent person, it seems inconsistent for younot to allow us to use him/her. In other words, what differencedoes the distance make (contiguous, or not contiguous) when thecompetent person is going to check the equipment anyhow?


524

COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-16 (Log #3). While the Committee acknowledges that this new definition maycreate isolated hardships, the Committee also views the definitionas the safest approach. By including this definition in the standard,the Committee hopes to eliminate any ongoing confusion causedby varying interpretations of the term "facility."NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #4)306- 68 - (2-6.6): RejectSUBMITTER: Martin H. Finkel , Environmental Safety & Health ofAlaskaCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-60RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "...shall remain in place unless recertificated during the workauthorized by the certificate." SUBSTANTIATION: Since the section on labeling tanks that havebeen designated "Not safe for workers" is open for review, thecommittee should take advantage of the opportunity to fix a long-standing problem with the current wording. As currently worded,the tank(s) so designated must have a sign labeling it/them as notsafe continuously until the tank is next inspected and recertificatedas "safe for workers." In situations where the tank was inerted, andso requires a "not safe for workers" designation, the tank may notbe recertificated for a considerable time (months or years). It isnot the intent of the committee to have signs on the deck of asupply boat because the fuel tanks were inerted at some time in thepast and are now "closed and secured" (a disposal methodallowed by NFPA 306). Changing the wording from "...untilrecertificated." to read: "...during the work authorized by thecertificate." Once the vessel leaves the repair facility (assumingthat the disposal method is "keep closed and secured."), the workauthorized by the certificate is over and the sign may be removed(as is current practice). Confined spaces on vessels that have not been certified as "safefor workers" are to always be treated as "not safe." Removing thesign when the intended work that initiated the designation of aparticular tank as "not safe" is over, so that any potential for entryinto an unsafe tank is past, should not result in a reduced level ofsafety.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee rejected thiscomment because it believes that the intent of labeling spaces "NotSafe for Workers" according to 29 CFR 1915.12 is to ensure thatentry is not made into spaces that have not been tested andapproved for entry. In addition, if a Marine Chemist tests aconfined space, and issues a Not Safe for Workers Certificate, theintent of the standard is for that Certificate and any warning signsto remain in place until the space has been retested and entry isauthorized.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #8)306- 69 - (3-2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Hank Hilliard, PURGIT Emission ControlCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-38RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "The Marine Chemist shall approve the use of the inertingmedium . (and) A Marine Chemist, USCG tankerman, or vesselofficer shall personally..."SUBSTANTIATION: Tank inerting is routinely done byprofessionals that are capable of successfully completing the job.Inerting done by persons familiar with the vessel, cargo and theinert gas is expeditious, saving the vessel from unnecessaryassociated costs. And it represents the same degree of latitudewhere the inerting was done before the vessel arrived at the repairfacility.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee believes that MarineChemists should remain in control of the inerting procedure, andsupervise the procedure and introduction of the inerting medium.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #20)306- 70 - (3-2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Hank Hilliard, PURGIT Emission ControlCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-38RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "A Marine Chemist, in all cases, shall personally conduct tests bysampling top, middle and bottom of the tank space to determinethe average of the observed samples are at or below 50 percent ofthe..."SUBSTANTIATION: There is no common technique forsampling the vapor space of inerted tanks. Some chemists put thesample tube 6 in. inside the tank and therefore only get anindication of the top of the tank. All gases in a tank will mix.Consideration should be given to proper technique for sampling. Carbon dioxide, as an inerting medium, can be inserted into atank in such a way that the gas fills from the bottom, displacing thetank vapor space. Chemists that use poor sample technique donot give any consideration the the fact that the top 1 ft of tankspace may be at 6 percent, but from 3 ft down to the bottom of thetank the oxygen level is 3 percent or less. The Marine Chemist is almost always sampling the tank just aftercompletion of inerting. At this point the gases in the tank have nothad a chance to mix presenting the worst condition for singlepoint sampling.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See substantiation to Comment 306-69 (Log #8). The Committee believes that the Marine Chemist ismost qualified to supervise the inerting procedure, determinetesting and sampling locations, and specify the disposal of theinerting medium.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #21)306- 71 - (3-2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Hank Hilliard, PURGIT Emission ControlCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-38RECOMMENDATION: Proposal to change language to delete"the inerted space is at or below 8 percent" and instead only use"50 percent of the amount required to support combustion."SUBSTANTIATION: This should be accompanied with athorough list of all cargoes carried on marine vessels showing theamount of oxygen required to support combustion so thecalculation can be definitively made of the 50 percent level.Differences of combustion levels for nitrogen, carbon dioxide andargon should be noted.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-40 (Log #46).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #47)306- 72 - (3-2.2, 3-3.2, 3-3.3, 3-4.1, 3-4.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Tom D. Littlepage, Gulf Marine Chemists, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-65RECOMMENDATION: Delete proposal: Replace the phrase"avoid accidental" with the phrase "to prevent or by written noticerestrict."SUBSTANTIATION: 1. Written notice, either tag-out ordisclaimer currently on a marine chemist certificate, will notprevent openings.


525

2. If a pipe or valve is opened by accident, intention, ordereliction the proposed wording appears to hold the chemistnegligent, even though these actions are beyond the chemist’scontrol. 3. For piping aboard operational vessel’s pump rooms, enginerooms and machinery spaces, this proposed provision cannot beuniversally implemented.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-30 (Log #63).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #26)306- 73 - (7-4): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Travis Schobel , Southwest Shipyard L.P.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-45RECOMMENDATION: Reject the Proposal.SUBSTANTIATION: Will require numerous certificates to bewritten (1) For entry to survey, (1) once work is identified and (1)every time additional work is found. The numerous visits by thechemists will cause delays in writing the certificates and down timewaiting on them to show up. Another major factor will be the costthat we have to charge our customers.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-52 (Log #59).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #48)306- 74 - (7-4): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: George A. Smith, Sr. , Southwest Shipyard L.P.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-45RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal.SUBSTANTIATION: Example: (1) GFC for fracture in hull ofbarge. When we test repairs and find another fracture that was notfound earlier it will result in additional GFC’s, delay time waitingfor chemist, cost increase to customers.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 306-52 (Log #59).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #CC3)306- 75 - (A-1-5): AcceptSUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Gas HazardsCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-1RECOMMENDATION: Add an Annex item A-1-5 (CompetentPerson definition) to read as follows: A-1-5. In accordance with OSHA's Shipyard Industry standard (29CFR 1915.7), competent persons are required to be trained anddesignated by their employer. The employer must also ensure thatthe designated competent person has specific skills, knowledge,and abilities based on the criteria set forth in 29 CFR 1915.7.Maritime confined space safety training is available from NFPA,many Marine Chemists, and other safety or training professionals.SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee wanted to provide users ofthe standard with additional information related to the designationof, criteria for, and training of the competent person.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #CC4)306- 76 - (A-2-3.3): AcceptSUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Gas HazardsCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-1RECOMMENDATION: Asterisk 2-3.3, and add and Annex itemA-2-3.3 to read as follows: A-2.3.3. Examples of administrative controls include stay times,regulations, work rules, standard operating procedures, hot workpermits, company policies. Examples of engineering controlsinclude ventilation, isolation, and substitution. Examples ofpersonal protective equipment controls include head, eyes,hearing and body protection as well as all types of respiratoryprotection.SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee wanted to furnishadditional information for users of the newly defined StandardSafety Designation "Enter With Restrictions."COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #34)306- 77 - (A-2-4.4 (New) ): RejectSUBMITTER: David J. Miller , Marine Enviornment Testing, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-76RECOMMENDATION: Delete all proposed test as follows: "A-2-4.4 Due to the different methods of conducting test for toxicmaterials, the results would be listed as "none the detected" alongwith the limit detection (LOD) or less than (<) the "limit ofdetection", when appropriate...may exceed established exposurelimits."SUBSTANTIATION: This requirement is not designed to assistthe chemist or will not in most cases provide useable informationto the user of the certificate (shipyard). This requirement alsoinsists on the chemist providing information that he has littlecontrol over (temperature and pressure factors) additionally allthis information will do is clutter a certificate with information thatwill not assist the welder or shipfitter. The certificate needs to be asimple, clear document that the end user can read. Thisrequirement will be used as a means of second guessing themarine chemist’s choice of toxicity testing devices. In order toimplement this requirement, the committee must provideacceptable toxic measuring devices for toxic substances. Pleasekeep in mind that the marine chemist generally relies on "Field"instruments. If the toxic reading level is so critical as to requirethe LOD, the testing should be done by a laboratory.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee agreed with thesubstantiation accompanying the original proposal in that thisinformation is needed to assist the Marine Chemist in providingthe best information to the end users of the Certificate. It providesa redundant measure of safety in the event the Marine Chemist isusing incorrect or outdated exposure limits either due to changesin established limits or if an employer is observing a limit lowerthan established limits.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #CC2)306- 78 - (Annex C): AcceptSUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Gas HazardsCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-1RECOMMENDATION: Change the sample Marine ChemistCertificate in Appendix C to reflect the following: The new standard safety designation Atmosphere Safe forWorkers. To the Qualifications, add "Transfer of ballast, cargo, fuel, ormanipulation of valves....." To the phrase above the signature line, "The undersignedacknowledges receipt........and the limitations under which it wasissued, and the requirements for maintaining its validity." SUBSTANTIATION: These changes will enable the Certificate tocoincide with proposed revisions to the standard.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________


526

(Log #CC1)306- 79 - (Table C-1, C-2, and C-3): AcceptSUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Gas HazardsCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-1RECOMMENDATION: Add the Tables C-1, C-2, and C-3 fromAppendix C of NFPA 69-1997 to a new Annex F in NFPA 306-2001.SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee wanted to make access tothese tables more convenient for the Marine Chemist and otherswho may be interested in determining the amounts of oxygenrequired to support the combustion of many substances.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #40)306- 80 - (Appendix D): RejectSUBMITTER: Joseph V. Daddura , Rep. U.S. Department ofLabor OSHACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 306-80RECOMMENDATION: Replace the existing Appendix D with thefollowing:

Appendix D Guidance to Vessel Owners and Operators WhenHot Work and/or Enclosed/Confined Space Entry Must beConducted on a vessel at Sea and a Marine Chemist is Not

Available This appendix is not a part of the requirements of this NFPAdocument, but is included for information purposes only.

Introduction The Technical Committee on Gas Hazards believes there is nosubstitute for completion of the entire Marine Chemist trainingcurriculum and certification process. However, we recognize thatsituations can arise on vessels at sea such that repairs cannot bedelayed until a Marine Chemist is available. U.S. Coast Guardregulations allow the senior officer present to make the inspectionto authorize entry and hot work when a vessel is not in a port orplace in the United States or its territories and possessions and amarine chemist or such person authorized by the Officer inCharge, Marine Inspection is not reasonably available. [See 46CFR 35.01-1(c)(2), 46 CFR 71.60-1(c)(2), 46 CFR 91.50(c)(2), 46CFR 167.30-10(c)(1), and 46 CFR 189.50-1(c)(2).] The Standard is not written to specifically address how toperform atmospheric monitoring that is necessary to achieve safeconditions related to gas freeing, tank entry, and hot work. TheStandard contains guidance on the criteria for a safe condition forentry and hot work. The following information outlines theactivities involved with entering a space and conducting hot workon a vessel at sea. Vessel owners and/or operators shoulddetermine that their employees have sufficient training to carry outthese activities. Formal classroom training to learn thefundamentals of gas freeing and atmospheric testing and control ofsafety hazards, an on-the-job break-in period to provide experiencein applying that knowledge, and an oral qualification board to testknowledge and judgment may be appropriate steps in such atraining program. This Appendix is not all-encompassing. For example, use ofrespirators is mentioned, but the requisite respiratory protectionprogram covering fit-testing, use, care, and maintenance of therespirator and medical examination of the wearer are not. Furtherguidance on confined space entry, hot work and the supportprograms needed may be obtained from the references listed at theend of this Appendix.Overview The senior officer responsible for hot work must be able toanticipate, recognize, evaluate and control the hazards associatedwith entry and work in confined spaces on vessels at sea. Thehazards might result from any number of conditions. Forexample, difficult entry or egress, inadequate ventilation, non-atmospheric safety hazards, and/or the actual or potentialpresence of oxygen deficient, oxygen enriched, flammable or toxicatmospheres. Spaces may contain flammable or toxiccontaminants, residual liquid, or solid residues or scale that hasthe capacity of regenerating hazardous conditions. The workproposed for the space may generate toxic vapors, fumes, mists ordusts. Evaluation of the hazards requires real-time monitoring of theconfined spaces to determine the atmospheric levels of oxygen,flammables, and toxics within the spaces. The measurements

must be compared to guidelines established by NFPA 306, USCG46 CFR, OSHA 29 CFR, or the American Conference ofGovernmental Hygienists (ACGIH). In most cases, oxygen shouldbe between 19.5 percent by volume and 22 percent by volume.(One exception is the inerting of a space prior to hot work, whereoxygen should be at or below 8 percent or 50 percent of theamount required to support combustion, whichever is lower.Note that entry is not permitted into inerted spaces.) Flammabilityreadings must be less than 10 percent of the lower explosive limit(LEL). Toxic levels must be less than permissible concentrations,that is, the lower level between the Permissible Exposure Limit(PEL), set by OSHA, or by the current ACGIH Threshold LimitValue (TLV). Evaluation of the hazards also requires a judgmentregarding the potential for the generation of flammable or toxicvapors or displacement of oxygen during the work or when thespace sits unattended. Control is any action taken to eliminate or minimize a hazard thathas been recognized and evaluated. Maintaining safe workingconditions throughout the duration of the prescribed work can bevery difficult. The three types of controls are engineering controls,administrative controls, and personal protection. Ventilation isthe most common form of engineering control. It is used duringthe initial gas-freeing phase when preparing a confined space forentry, and during entry and work to ensure that atmosphericconditions don’t change from those that existed when entry andwork were permitted. Administrative controls include training,standard operating procedures or safe work practices, and permitsystems that authorize work and entry. Well written safe workpractices provide for full implementation of recognition,evaluation, and control. Personal protection is the least desiredmethod of control because the hazard has not been removed oreliminated. Instead, the workers are made safe for the space bywearing some form of protective equipment. If the equipmentfails, the workers are exposed. Control includes frequent monitoring and reevaluating of theatmosphere within the space. Initial effectiveness of a controlmeasure doesn’t guarantee it will be effective while the work is inprogress. This is especially true if contaminants are generated as aresult of the work itself. The key to working safely in confinedspaces is continuous reevaluation of the conditions. That includesevaluating the nature and extent of the work as well as periodicretesting of oxygen, flammability and toxic levels. Any enclosed/confined space entry permit and/or hot workpermit should be issued. The permit should indicate the scope ofwork; date and time the permit expires; permissible limits foratmospheric hazards, atmospheric test results and retestingrequirements; access/egress locations; ventilation requirements;lighting requirements; piping isolation controls; electrical andmachinery hazard controls; personal protective equipmentrequired; rescue equipment on standby; name of the entrants,attendants, rescue team members, responsible person, and officerof the watch; communication procedures; and emergency andevacuation procedures. The permit should also indicate the dateand time work is completed and when the space is secured againstentry and/or further hot work. The permit should be signed bythe master and responsible person, all entrants, the attendant, andall rescue team members.

Activities Involved with Inspecting Enclosed/Confined Spaces andAuthorizing Entry and/or Hot Work on a Vessel at Sea

Activities Prior to Inspection• Determine types of hazards that might be present, based on

the configuration of the space, access and egress, type of lighting,location of hot work, the three previous cargoes in the space oradjacent spaces, tank coatings, work procedures to be followed,and materials to be used. Consider:

• Oxygen-Deficient Atmospheres• Oxygen consumed by chemical reactions like

oxidation (e.g., rusting, welding, space heaters)• Oxygen displaced by inert gases (e.g., flue gas from

inert gas system, carbon monoxide from internal combustionengine exhaust)

• Oxygen adsorbed by porous surfaces like activatedcharcoal

• Oxygen-Enriched Atmospheres (e.g., leaking from hosesor fittings associated with oxy-fuel gas welding equipment)

• Flammable Atmospheres• Residues• Scale• Piping• Vent lines• Heating coils


527

• Hollow structures (e.g., lap welds)• Toxic Atmospheres

• Dusts (e.g., grinding, abrasive blasting)• Fumes (e.g., welding and flame cutting)• Mists (e.g., pressure washing)• Vapors (e.g., residues, welding)• Gases (e.g., inert gases—nitrogen, carbon dioxide;

welding)• Non-atmospheric Physical Hazards

• Slips, trips and falls (e.g., ladders, frames, baffles,mud)

• Electrical hazards• Hot surfaces (e.g. , from welding and cutting)• Machinery

• Determine scope and extent of work• Review ship’s plan and identify all affected spaces and

adjacent spaces • Review existing vessel procedures and safe work practices

• Develop plan for inspection procedures, work procedures,and emergency procedures

• Inform shore office and obtain their agreement on the detailsof the work proposed and the procedures to be followed

• Select instruments and review manufacturer’s instructions• Oxygen meters• Combustible gas monitors• Toxic gas and vapor instruments

• Colorimetric tubes• Chip measurement systems• Sensor based instruments

• Combination instruments• Personal alarms

• Calibrate instruments in accordance with manufacturer’sinstructions and record results in a calibration log.

• Conduct pre-entry safety meeting with master and all personsinvolved with the work including entrants, attendants, and rescueteam members. Establish pattern of inspection that will befollowed.

• Stage rescue equipment (SCBAs, extra tanks, harnesses,lifelines, hoists, communications equipment, etc.)Activities During Inspection

• Wear appropriate personal protective equipment (e.g.,emergency escape breathing apparatus, rescue harness, personaloxygen and/or toxic gas or vapor meter, air purifying respirator,protective clothing, gloves, eye protection, etc.)

• Use explosion proof equipment (flashlight, ventilationequipment, sampling instruments, communications equipment,etc.)

• Isolate electrical systems (lockout/tagout)• Ensure all piping associated with affected spaces is flushed,

blown, and disconnected, blanked off, or otherwise separated by apositive method

• Check manifold openings• Check drip pans• Purge and ventilate space as necessary• Field check instruments• Ensure people on standby are alert and ready• Ensure emergency response equipment is ready (e.g., recovery

lines and/or hoist, SCBAs with extra tanks, etc.)• Establish communications between entrant, attendant, officer

of the watch, and rescue team• Drop test all affected and adjacent compartments from on

deck. Check oxygen levels, combustible gases, and toxics, in thatorder. (Check low middle and high at fore, middle, and aft partsof tank to identify pockets or stratified atmosphere. Take extracare to test each area segregated by internal structures such asbaffles. E.g., entry may have to progress slowly as a “drop test” iscompleted transiting through a baffle.)

• If drop tests indicate an acceptable atmosphere, enter thetank(s) and conduct visual inspection. Check:

• Access /egress options• Tank coatings and preservatives• Tank bottom and sides for residues• Scale and its potential to generate vapors• If liquid or residue is found, identify or perform analysis

topside in a safe location. Determine the type of liquid andassociated hazards (e.g., flash point, combustible determination)

• Location of hollow structures and need to drill andventilate or inert them (e.g., lap welds)

• Piping location and cleanliness• Cofferdams• Steam coils• Necessity for ventilation, based on conditions in the

space and scope of work

• Other hazardous conditions, such as presence of CO,CO 2, H2 S, etc.

• Non-atmospheric physical hazards (condition of ladders,electrical hazards, machinery, etc.)

• If a hazardous condition is found, inform the master, correctthe situation, and retest and visually inspect.

• If inerting is to be done, test for LEL and O 2, completeinerting, and post necessary signs.Activities After Inspection

• Complete an inspection log noting atmospheric test levels andother hazards noted during inspection. Update the log each timethe space is retested and inspected even if work continues underthe original permit.

• If compartment is safe for workers and/or safe for hot work,issue an enclosed space entry permit and/or hot work permit.

• Record standard designations (refer to Chapter 2) for eachcompartment involved.

• Write down specific conditions under which work can bedone and under which the space must be reinspected. (Considerthe work to be performed, temperature, humidity, etc.)

• List the time at which the permit(s) expire.• Deliver the permit(s) to the master and review.• Conduct a pre-work brief with all personnel involved.• Conduct work according to the plan.• Conduct a post-work inspection to ensure there are no

smoldering fires, all equipment and personnel are out of thespace, valves are realigned as needed, etc.

• Notify the officer of the watch and master when post-workinspection is completed.References The following references provide additional guidance onenclosed space entry and hot work:

• International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers and Terminals(ISGOTT), Fourth Edition, 1996 International Chamber ofShipping, Oil Companies International Marine Forum andInternational Association of Ports and Harbors

• Tanker Safety Guide, Liquefied Gas, Second Edition, 1995,International Chamber of Shipping

• Guidelines for Confined Space Entry On Board Tank Ships inThe Petroleum Industry, API Recommended Practice 1141, FirstEdition, March 1994

• Complete Confined Spaces Handbook, First Edition, 1994John F. Rekus, National Safety Council, Lewis Publishers (Secondedition will have more information on maritime confined spaces)

• Recommendations for Entering Enclosed Spaces AboardShips, International Maritime Organization Marine SafetyCommittee Circular 744, June 14, 1996

• 29 CFR 1915 Subpart B.SUBSTANTIATION: This text was developed by LCDR JulieGahn as part of the Tank Ship workgroup during the last revisioncycle of NFPA 306 but was not completed in time to allow forpublic comment. The new Appendix D will provide more specificguidance to vessel owners and operators when a Marine Chemist isnot available. The Tank Ship workgroup was working on thisappendix as a result of an NTSB recommendation following theOMI CHARGER incident.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee does not feel thatthis proposed Annex item belongs in a what is viewed as a shipyardstandard. The proposed Annex does, however, merit a standard ofits own. Although it contains good safety information, it is notapplicable to the ship construction, ship repair, or shipbreakingactivities that this standard addresses. The Committeerecommends the establishment of a ships afloat standard, forexample, by NFPA or other standards-making organizations.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

Documents

Devi P. Rungta, Stanley P. Smith, John S. Starcher