Committee Chairperson: Pat Finn, DOE Headquarters, EH-51, called the meeting of the DOE
Hoisting and Rigging Technical Advisory Committee (HRTAC) to order.  Mr. Finn welcomed
attendees and introductions were made (See Attachment 1, List of Attendees). 

1.   Mr. Finn discussed the following events and issues that have occurred or developed since
      the last meeting:

•      A copy of the recently signed agreement between the Occupational Safety and Health

     Administration (OSHA) and the National Commission for the Certification of Crane
     Operators (NCCCO) was handed out to committee members.  The agreement officially
     recognizes the national crane operator certification program.  This initiative evolved from
     a tower crane accident in San Francisco about twelve years ago at which time OSHA
     initiated rulemaking involving the certification of crane operators.  The hoisting &
     rigging industry, specifically the Specialized Carriers and Riggers Association and the
     International Union of Operating Engineers, established a work group, the “National
     Commissions for the Certification of Crane Operators,” to develop a voluntary consensus
     process for certification of crane operators.  It is specifically directed at states and
     municipalities that do not have legislative mandates for crane operator certification.  With
     the signing of this agreement, OSHA will now recognize operators who have achieved
     certification through this program as meeting the training and qualification requirements
     of the OSHA standards and those referenced ASME B30 Crane standards. 

          NOTE: If any DOE sites that are located in states or locations that do not have a
          crane operator certification program and are interested in trying the NCCCO
          program out as a “pilot program,” contact Mr. Finn.
 
•      DOE’s Worker Health and Safety Response Line interpretations involving hoisting and

     rigging completed since the May 1998 committee meeting in Las Vegas Nevada were
     handed out to committee members.  Mr.  Finn indicated that all construction and hoisting
     & rigging safety issues, except asbestos, industrial hygiene and record keeping issues are
     resolved by him.  A recently published DOE Environment, Safety & Health “Safety &
     Health Note” (See Attachment 2), discusses the roles and responsibilities of the DOE’s
     response line.  The phone number and INTERNET address are also provided in the Note. 
     Mr. Finn urged the committee to use the response line service if the need arises.  Mr. Finn
     told committee members that in most cases construction and hoisting/rigging responses
     are researched using expertise from Construction Safety Advisory Committee members
     or HRTAC members.  In most cases, the person asking the question is contacted to make
     sure the question in need of interpretation is correctly understood and the background
     behind the question is known.  In many cases, the background behind the question is a
     disagreement between those providing oversight and direction and the contractor who
     feels the direction is overzealous or beyond the contractual requirements.  Mr. Finn
     reminded the committee that the reason for the response line is not to intervene and/or
     rule on issues that are not clearly understood. 

3.   Mr. Ron McNabb, Mason & Hanger Company, gave a presentation on Pantex’s forklift
      operator training program and how Pantex is meeting the new requirements of 29 CFR
      1910.178.  Mr. McNabb indicated that if anybody was interested in obtaining information
      on  Pantex’s forklift operator training program they could contact him and he would be
      glad to provide any and all information.  You can contact Mr. McNabb at (806)477-6855.

4.   Mr. Dennis Humphreys, DOE Richland Operations Office, presented a proposal on
      changing the requirements for 10.5.1.3.q “Below the Tine Rigging.”  10.5.1.q now reads; 

          10.5.1.3.q.    Do not rig loads from the tines of a forklift truck, (attaching
          rigging to the forks to support a suspended load) without written management
          approval.

      After a lengthy discussion a working group comprised of Pat Finn, Dennis Humphreys,
      Mike Baxley, Mason & Hanger Company, Mike Viola, Princeton Plasma Physics
      Laboratory, and  Jack Heier, DOE Idaho Operations Office, indicated they would work
      on a proposal during lunch and present it to the committee in the afternoon session.  They
      proposed the following change for “Below the Tine Rigging;”

         10.5.1.3.q     Rigging loads from the tines of a forklift (attaching rigging to the
          forks to support a suspended load) shall only be preformed by qualified personnel
          in accordance with approved site procedures.

      The vote on the proposed change was; 21 yes, 1 no and 1 abstained.  The change was
      approved.

5.   Mr. Mike Viola presented a proposal to change the requirements for “Critical Lifts” in
      Chapter 2 “Critical Lifts.”  The proposed change was;

          2.1.b    A lift shall be designated as a critical lift if the requirements for ordinary
          lifts do not adequately eliminate or control the likelihood or severity of the
          following;                      

1. Personnel injury or significant adverse health impact (onsite or offsite).

2. Significant release of radioactive or other hazardous material or other   
    undesirable conditions.

3. Undetectable damage that would jeopardize future operations or the 
    safety of a facility.

4. Damage that would result in delay to schedule or other significant  
    program impact such as loss of vital data.

          LIFT, CRITICAL:  Lifting of parts, components, assemblies, or other items
          designated as critical because the effect of dropping, upset, or collision of them
          could:

          o    Present a potentially unacceptable risk for of personnel injury or property
                damage
          o    Result in significant release of radioactivity or other undesirable
                conditions
          o    Cause undetectable damage resulting in future operational or safety
                problems
          o    Cause significant work delay

6.    Mr. Jack Heier gave a presentation on a crane incident that had occurred at the Idaho
       National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.  A crane was passing through a
       security “Delta Barrier” for entrance to a facility when the Delta Barrier was
       inadvertently raised while the crane was part way through the security gate.  The crane
       was damaged extensively and the project was delayed until another crane could be
       located and rented to complete the project.

7.    Mr. Mike Berry, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, presented a proposal to
       change Chapter 4 “Lifting Personnel,” to meet the requirements of the newly developed
       standard of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) B30.23 1998
       “Personnel Lifting Systems.”  The committee decided to form a subcommittee comprised
       of  Mike Berry, Mike Baxley, Bryan Drennan, Sandia National Laboratories, Philip
       Boehme, DOE Oakland Operations Office and Lynn Holt.  The subcommittee is to use
       the Hanford Hoisting and Rigging Manual, Chapter 15 “Personnel Lifting,” ASME
       B30.23 1998, existing Chapter 4 of DOE-STD 1090, and 29 CFR 1926.550(g) as
       guidelines to develop a "straw man" for a revised Chapter 4.  This "straw man" will be
       circulated to the HRTAC as a letter ballot for approval or disapproval.

8.    Mr. Rich Haddock, DOE Oakland Operations Office gave a presentation of a “Crane
       Maintenance Electrocution” - “Near Miss.” 

9.    Mr. Pat Finn discussed the “pros and cons” of converting DOE-STD 1090 from
       WordPerfect 6.1 to Microsoft Word.  Mr. Finn indicated the cost of making the
       conversion is prohibitive and WordPerfect is the preferred software of the DOE Office of
       Scientific and Technical Information which maintains the DOE Technical Standards.

10.  Ms. Eva Jean Bryson, DOE Rocky Flats Field Office, discussed a situation that was
       ongoing at one of Rocky Flats’ decommissioning project sites.  Ms. Bryson was asking
       the HRTAC’s opinion about using engineering calculation instead of performing load
       testing of hoisting equipment in a radiation contaminated area.  The HRTAC indicated
       that the site should build and use a “Hostile Environment Plan” according to guidelines
       provided in Chapter 5, “Hostile Environments” of DOE-STD 1090 to resolve these
       issues. 

11.  Mr. Dan Stevens, Westinghouse Electric Westvalley presented a proposal to change
       Chapter 12, “Rigging Accessories” Section 12.8 c & d  “Load-Indicating Devices.”  The
       proposed change was; 

          12.8.c.      Dynamometers shall have a design factors of not less 3:1

       The proposed change would read; 

          12.8.c.     Dynamometers shall have a design factors of not less 3:1.

       The committee voted to send the proposed change out as a letter ballot so members could
       further evaluate the proposal before voting. 

12.  Mr. Stevens presented another proposal to change Chapter 12, “Rigging Accessories”
       Section 12.8.b  “Load-Indicating Devices.”  Section 12.8.b now reads;

         12.8.b. The accuracy of load-indicating devices shall depend on the requirements
          of the load system planned and shall not restrict the system requirements; an
          accuracy of 2 percent of the full-scale reading within 10-70 percent of instrument
          range is recommended.  The device should be selected so that the estimated hook
          load lies between 10 and 70 percent of the full scale reading.

       Mr. Stevens stated that the Dillon Company, a manufacturer of dynamometers, states that
       they design and build with the expectation that the dynamometer will be used up to 100%
       of the rated capacity and that there is no reason either from a design standpoint or an
       accuracy standpoint that the dynamometer should be limited to a range of 10-70 percent
       of the full scale.  Mr. Stevens proposed to delete the reference to the 10-70 percent
       operating range. 

       The committee discussed the issue of changing the recommendation in section 12.8.b 
       “an accuracy of 2 percent of the full-scale reading within 10-70 percent of instrument
       range is recommended,” and decided that since the requirement is stated as a
       “recommendation” that the requirement should not be changed.  The motion was changed
       to leave section 12.8.b. as is.  The vote was 21 yes and 2 abstained, section 12.8.b. will
       stay as is.

13.  Mr. Stevens presented another proposal to change Chapter 12, “Rigging Accessories”
       Section 12.1.2.f   “Testing.”  Section 12.1.2.f  now reads;

          12.1.2.f  Dynamometers and load cell shall be tested and calibrated at least once a
          year and when specified in the critical lift procedure before being used to make a
          critical lift.  This also applies if they have not been used in the previous 6 months. 
          All calibrated devices shall have a tag affixed indicating date of calibration, by
          whom they were calibrated, and the date that the next calibration is due. 

       Mr. Stevens indicated that this section does not describes test criteria or parameters and 
       there appears to be no standard for construction and testing of dynamometers.  He asked
       the HRTAC if they wanted to delete the reference to “testing” or provide test
       criteria/parameters?  The committee discussed this issue and made a proposal to delete
       the requirement to test dynamometers.  The proposed change would read;

          12.1.2.f  Dynamometers and load cells shall be calibrated at least once a year and
          when specified in the critical lift procedure before being used to make a critical
          lift.  This also applies if they have not been used in the previous 6 months.  All
          calibrated devices shall have a tag affixed indicating date of calibration, by whom
          they were calibrated, and the date that the next calibration is due. 

       The vote was 23 yes and 0 no, the proposed change was approved.

14.  Mr. Mike Berry presented a proposal to change Chapter 11 “Wire Rope and Slings” to
       include a new section on synthetic round slings.  Criteria for the new section would be
       extracted from requirements of ASME B30.9b “Slings,” section 9-6 “Round Slings.”  The
       new section would be added to Chapter 11 as a new section, 11.3.6 “Synthetic Round
       Slings.” 

       The vote to incorporate a new section “Synthetic Round Slings” into Chapter 11 was 
       24 yes and 1 no, the proposed change was approved.

15.  Mr. Berry presented another proposal to change a “Note” in Appendix A “Procurement
       Guidelines.”  The proposed change would be to section 7.1 Synthetic Slings, section a.8. 
       The proposed change would read;

          NOTE:  Hand written, or ink embossed markings are not acceptable.  Sling tags
          shall be indelibly marked and the lettering shall not wear off with use.  The
          markings shall remain legible for the life of the sling.

       After a lengthy discussion the vote to incorporate this proposed change was 9 yes and 
       7 no, the proposed change was approved.

16.  Mr. Berry  presented another proposal to add a “Note” in Appendix A  “Procurement
       Guidelines.” The proposed change would be to section 7.1 Synthetic Slings, section a.14. 
       The proposed change would read;

          NOTE:  Sling lengths shall be within a specified tolerance.  Synthetic sling
          manufacturers normal length is ±1% of the sling length.  If closer tolerance is
          required the purchaser should specifically request required tolerance on the
          purchase order.

       The vote to incorporate this proposed change was 24 yes and 0 no, the proposed change
       was approved.

17.  Mr. Mike Viola presented a proposal to add qualification criteria for maintenance
       personnel in Chapter 6, “Personnel Qualifications and Training.”  Mr. Viola stated that
       ASME B30.5 “Mobile and Locomotive Cranes,” Chapter 5-3 section 5-3.1.1(a) states;

          Cranes shall be operated only by the following, 

          (3) maintenance personnel who have completed all operator trainee qualification 
          requirements.  Operation by these persons shall be limited to those crane functions
          necessary to perform maintenance on the crane or verify the performance of the
          crane after maintenance has been performed. 

      Mr. Viola proposed that Chapter 6 be changed to reflect the above stated requirements. 
      This change would reflect the requirements in ASME B30.5, Chapter 5-3, section 5-
      3.1.1(a)(1), (3), and (b). 

       The vote to incorporate this proposed change was 24 yes and 0 no, the proposed change
       was approved.

18.  Mr. Craig Hauber, Westinghouse WEC/WIPP, discussed the hoisting and rigging practice
       of “tandem lifts” (christmas treeing) that occurs during steel erection.  Mr. Hauber was
       concerned about this practice being allowed on some DOE sites and wanted to get the
       HRTAC’s input on this practice.  It was brought up that the proposed revisions to OSHA
       standard 29 CFR 1926 Subpart R “Steel Erection,” allowed for tandem lifting of
       structural steel beams.  It was further noted that this standard is a long way from
       completion and it remains unclear whether tandem lifts will continue to be allowed in
       future revisions.  In the meantime, OSHA continues to issue citations for this practice.  It
       was also noted during the discussion that the current edition of DOE-STD 1090-99,
       Chapter 9 “Mobile Cranes,” section 9.5.1.i states; 

          9.5.1.i Do not hoist two or more separately rigged loads in one lift, even though
          the combined load is within the crane’s rated capacity. 

       At this time Chapter 9, does not allow tandem lifting.  During further discussion it was
       noted that prohibition of tandem lifts in Chapter 9 is not reflected in Chapter 15,
       “Construction Hoisting and Rigging Equipment Requirements.”  Since OSHA’s current
       steel erection standard does not allow tandem lifts at this time, a motion was made to
       incorporate the requirements for not allowing tandem lifting from Chapter 9, section
       9.5.1.i into Chapter 15.  The vote was 24 yes and 0 no. 

19.  Mr. Mike Viola presented a proposal to update the “Periodic Inspection” checklist located
       within various chapters of DOE-STD 1090.  Mr. Viola provided examples of a number of
       different hoisting equipment periodic inspection checklists used at Princeton Plasma
       Physics Laboratory (PPPL).  The HRTAC voted to have Lynn Holt draft copies of new
       periodic inspection checklists using the examples submitted by Mr. Viola and submit
       them to the HRTAC for letter ballot approval or disapproval.  Mr. Viola volunteered to
       send electronic copies of PPPL periodic inspection checklist to Mr. Holt for use in
       drafting new checklist.  It was also agreed that “daily” inspection checklist would be
       drafted and made available in DOE-STD 1090 as reference checklist.  It was noted that
       daily equipment inspections are required, but documentation of those inspections are not
       required.  The daily checklist to be developed for DOE-STD 1090 would be noted as
       reference checklist only. 

20.  Mr. Dan Stevens presented a proposal to change DOE-STD 1090 to include information
       from ASME B30.1 “Jacks,” B30.7 “Base Mounted Drum Hoist,” B30.3 “Hammerhead
       Tower Cranes,” and ASME Portable Automotive Lifting Devices (PALD) standards.  The
       HRTAC decided not to include new additions to DOE-STD 1090 in the areas of ASME
       B30.7 “Base Mounted Drum Hoist,” and B30.3 “Hammerhead Tower Cranes,” because
       those requirements are already adequately covered in existing OSHA standards.  A
       subcommittee comprised of Dan Stevens, Craig Hauber, Mike Baxley and Danny Donald
       are to draft a "straw man" of appropriate requirements from ASME B30.1 “Jacks,” and
       ASME PALD standards for presentation to the HRTAC as a letter ballot or the next
       committee meeting.

21.  There was no new business, Mr. Finn adjourned the meeting at 5:30 p.m..