[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 11, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76214-76253]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-30405]
[[Page 76213]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Labor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
29 CFR Part 1915
Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 11, 2002 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 76214]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1915
[Docket S-051]
RIN 1218-AB51
Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), U.S.
Department of Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is
proposing fire protection standards for shipyard employment that were
developed through a negotiated rulemaking process. This proposed
standard is based on the recommendations of the Fire Protection in
Shipyard Employment Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee and is a
comprehensive standard for the protection of shipyard employment
workers from the hazards of fire on land side and on board vessels. The
proposed standard reflects new technologies and current national
consensus standards. The proposal collects all fire-related safety
practices into a single subpart, which will make them more accessible
and more easily understood by employers and employees. The standard
will provide increased protection of shipyard employment workers from
fire hazards.
DATES: Comments must be submitted by the following dates:
Hard Copy: Your comments must be submitted (postmarked or sent) by
March 11, 2003.
Facsimile and electronic transmission: Your comments must be sent
by March 11, 2003. (Please see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION provided
below for additional information on submitting comments.)
ADDRESSES: Regular mail, express delivery, hand-delivery, and messenger
service: You must submit three copies of your comments and attachments
to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. H-011G, Room N-2625, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC,
20210. OSHA Docket Office and Department of Labor hours of operation
are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.s.t.
Facsimile: If your comments, including any attachments, are 10
pages or fewer, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202)
693-1648. You must include the docket number of this notice, Docket No.
H-011G, in your comments.
Electronic: You may submit comments through the Internet at http://ecomments.osha.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information and press
inquiries, contact Ms. Bonnie Friedman, OSHA, Office of Information and
Consumer Affairs, N-3647, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210; telephone: (202) 693-1999. For additional copies of this Federal
Register notice, contact OSHA, Office of Publications, U.S. Department
of Labor, Room N-3101, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC,
20210; telephone (202) 693-1888. Electronic copies of this Federal
Register notice, as well as news releases and other relevant documents,
are available at OSHA's web page on the Internet at http://www.osha.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Submission of Comments on This Notice and Internet Access to Comments
and Submissions
You may submit comments in response to this notice by (1) hard
copy, or (2) FAX transmission (facsimile), or (3) electronically
through the OSHA Webpage. Please note that you cannot attach materials,
such as studies or journal articles, to electronic comments. If you
have additional materials, you must submit three copies of them to the
OSHA Docket Office at the address above. The additional materials must
clearly identify your electronic comments by name, date, subject and
docket number so we can attach them to your comments. Because of
security-related problems there may be a significant delay in the
receipt of comments by regular mail. Please contact the OSHA Docket
Office at (202)-693-2350 for information about security procedures
concerning the delivery of materials by express delivery, hand delivery
and messenger service. All comments and submissions will be available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office at the address
above. Comments and submissions posted on OSHA's Webpage are available
at http://www.osha.gov. OSHA cautions you about submitting personal
information such as social security numbers and birth dates. Contact
the OSHA Docket Office at (202)-693-2350 for information about
materials not available through the OSHA Webpage and for assistance in
using the Webpage to locate docket submissions.
Table of Contents
This Preamble to the proposed standard is organized into the
following sections:
I. Background
II. The Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment Negotiated Rulemaking
Advisory Committee
III. Pertinent Legal Authority
IV. Summary and Explanation of Proposal
V. Summary of the Preliminary Economic and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Screening Analyses
VI. OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
VII. Public Participation
VIII State Plan Standards
IX. Federalism
X. Unfunded Mandates
XI. Authority and Signature
I. Background
Employees in shipyard employment are subject to a high risk of
injury and death from fires and explosions during ship repair,
shipbuilding, shipbreaking, and related work activities as well as
firefighting activities. Many of the basic tasks involved in shipyard
employment (also referred to as just ``shipyards'' hereafter), such as
welding, grinding, and cutting metal with torches, provide an ignition
source for fires. There are also many combustible sources on vessels
and in shipyards, including flammable fuels and cargo on vessels, wood
structures, building materials, and litter. When cutting torches are
used in enclosed or confined spaces, accidental oxygen-enriched
atmospheres can cause normally fire resistant-materials to readily
burn. When fires do occur, employees are often working in confined or
enclosed spaces that may make escape difficult or impossible, and
result in atmospheres of combustible gases, toxic fumes, or oxygen-
depleted air.
Shipyard employees are therefore at risk from fires that can result
in burns, death, explosions, toxic gases and fumes, and asphyxiation
from a lack of oxygen. Based on data collected by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, there is an annual average of one fatality, 110 lost-
workday ``heat/burn'' injuries, and more than three times that many
total injuries (Ex. 15).
In addition, employees are also at special risk when fighting fires
in shipyards. Fighting fires at shoreside facilities in shipyards can
be similar to structural firefighting at typical industrial
manufacturing facilities. The usual firefighting hazards encountered
include compressed gas cylinders, flammable liquid processes and
storage, high-voltage electric switches and transformers, and high-
density combustible materials storage.
[[Page 76215]]
Structures at shipyards can range from single-story office buildings to
warehouses to massive fabrication shops. Fires can also be encountered
in tunnel sections, rail cars, vessel components, and similar units
under construction, repair, or demolition at the shipyard site.
However, firefighting on board vessels can be considerably
different from structural firefighting. When traditional structural
firefighting techniques are used on vessel fires, the result can be
catastrophic. The potential is much greater for serious injury to
firefighting personnel when tactics do not reflect the unique nature of
ship firefighting. For example, there may be little or no ability to
ventilate the heat, smoke, and gases produced by a fire. Typically, in
structural firefighting, immediate steps are taken to open up the
structure, vertically and horizontally, to remove smoke and heat. Hose
lines are then used to attack the fire. When fighting a ship fire, one
of the first steps that may be taken is to shut down ventilation
systems to close off the fire's progression and starve it of oxygen.
Hose lines are used to cool down surrounding metal decks and bulkheads.
A defensive fire-fighting option for large or intense structural fires
is to ``surround and drown'; that is, position hose lines outside the
structure and apply voluminous amounts of water until the fire goes
out. Strategic options for vessel fires are very limited and nearly
always require an aggressive interior attack. Small shipyards have
outside fire responders. These municipal or other fire departments may
not have much experience in fighting fires in shipyards or, especially,
on vessels. Proper coordination, familiarization, and training is
necessary to ensure the safety of outside firefighters who respond to
shipyard fires.
Vessel fires are also more complicated because, in most cases,
outside firefighters seldom have the opportunity to learn the layout of
the vessel. Vessels under construction or modification have constantly
changing structures. Firefighters, operating under adverse conditions
caused by heat and smoke, can easily become disoriented or confused.
Access to the vessel may be restricted by its location, such as within
a dry dock, meaning that firefighters boarding the ship will have to
converge on one or two access locations. This can lead to congestion of
personnel and delays in locating and extinguishing the fire. Access can
also be restricted by equipment, tools, vessel components, and
structures. Staging platforms, scaffolding or rigging, cranes, and even
mooring lines can hamper deploying hose lines and positioning
apparatus, again causing delays and confusion. Even with unrestricted
access to the vessel, deploying hose lines can be time-consuming and
labor intensive. To attack a fire deep within a ship, firefighting
hoses may have to be stretched hundreds of feet, a task that requires
time and a lot of people.
Maintaining an adequate supply of air is another tactical problem
for firefighting operations on ships. Firefighters will usually be
equipped with self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) that optimally
provide a 30-minute supply, after which the compressed air bottle will
have to be refilled or replaced. Ship fire-fighting operations can last
many hours; firefighters have to be rotated frequently to resupply
their SCBA and counteract fatigue.
Ships' fires also present a problem firefighters do not often have
to think about--introducing a large amount of water into the vessel, so
much so that the vessel can become unstable and possibly capsize or
sink. This potential problem requires consultation with experts (such
as naval architects or U.S. Coast Guard engineers) to assure vessel
stability.
Radio communication is another complicating factor common to
fighting ship fires. Steel bulkheads and many compartments in ships
effectively block and limit radio signal transmissions. To compensate,
firefighters have to relay messages from within the ship by stationing
personnel with radios close enough that transmissions can be sent and
received. Other alternatives include using runners or deploying hard-
wire communications systems. All possible solutions to this problem
involve additional personnel, delays in establishing command and
control, and increase the potential for mishaps.
Fires in shipyard employment present significant, serious hazards
to those who work to control them. These hazards can be found in
shipbuilding, as well as in shipbreaking and ship repair. Because
firefighters must function on both land side and on board vessels, they
need a single set of standards and training to do so safely. Likewise,
other shipyard employees move from ship to shore frequently and need a
single standard and training on alarms, evacuation, and the many other
response actions.
OSHA's general industry standards for fire protection are in
subpart L, CFR 1910.155 through 1910.165. The application of subpart L,
CFR 1910.155(b), exempts maritime employments from coverage. Subpart L
addresses typical land-side fire prevention and firefighting conditions
(fire extinguishers, fixed extinguishing systems, etc.). OSHA
compliance policy, set out in OSHA Instruction STD.2 addresses typical
land-side fire hazards in shipyards. Since the Agency has no specific
standards that address the risks of fire on board vessels and vessel
sections, OSHA has used the General Duty Clause section 5 (a)(1) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act to cite fire safety hazards on both
land-side facilities and on board vessels and vessel sections (also
referred to as just ``vessels'' hereafter). To enforce the General Duty
Clause, OSHA must show the existence of a hazard, that the hazard is
recognized, that the hazard is causing, or is likely to cause serious
physical harm to employees, and that a feasible means exists to abate
the hazard. To demonstrate industry recognition and feasible abatement
measures, OSHA has relied upon standards published by the Coast Guard
and other branches of the Federal Government to identify hazards and
abatement steps as well as guidelines developed by professional
associations such as the National Fire Protection Association and the
Marine Chemists Association.
The lack of a clear OSHA standard for fire protection on vessels,
and the multiplicity of guidelines and standards from other sources
that potentially apply to shipyards can result in uncertainty about,
and gaps in, the safety requirements for employers in the shipyard
industry. The Agency has preliminarily concluded that codifying
relevant issues for fire protection in shipyards into a single subpart
in CFR part 1915 will substantially clarify an employer's
responsibilities in protecting shipyard employees from fire hazards.
The Agency believes that this, in turn, will lead to better protection
for these employees.
Simply extending application of the current general industry
standards to shipyards would not be appropriate. First, most of the
provisions in the general industry standards have been in effect since
1980. They would need revision to take into account technological
advances that could improve fire protection in shipyard employment.
These advances are recognized in the proposed new subpart P. Secondly,
shipyard employment encompasses many tasks and worksites that are
unique to the maritime industry. Employers, labor representatives and
professional and trade associations have repeatedly asked OSHA to allow
all shipyard employment to be covered by a single set of standards.
They point out that the
[[Page 76216]]
work situations found within shipyard employment have more in common
with each other than with those in general industry, and that the
hazards and methods of controlling the hazards are similar throughout
the shipyard. Finally, they point out that the work on land and aboard
the vessels is located within the same area and performed by the same
workforce. Fire protection services are usually provided by the same
in-yard plant or out-of-yard fire crews to all areas of shipyard
employment. OSHA's Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for subpart
P (hereafter ``the Committee'') concluded that when fire response crews
find shipyard employment sites following the same standard, the crews
are more effective in their fire response activities. OSHA agrees and
has preliminarily concluded that a single new standard addressing fire
hazards for all shipyard employment, on land and on board vessels, is
reasonably necessary and appropriate to protect shipyard employees.
The Agency has also preliminarily concluded that there is a
significant risk to employees of material impairment from fires,
explosions, and fire-related accidents causing death, burns, and
injuries related to fire and fighting fires. OSHA further concludes
that the proposal's requirements for inspections before beginning hot
work, fire watches, fire planning, training, and other provisions will
help save lives and prevent injuries. Proposed subpart P will
substantially reduce this risk of fire by recognizing and, in some
cases, requiring new technology.
OSHA established the Shipyard Employment Standards Advisory
Committee (SESAC) in 1990. SESAC was formed to guide OSHA in revising,
consolidating, and modernizing the varying sets of rules that were
being applied in the shipyard employment industry into what would
ultimately become a single comprehensive set of standards for all
shipyard employment. The new shipyard employment standards would apply
to all shipyard employment, regardless of geographic location. In 1991
SESAC began work on standards on fire protection for all shipyard
employment. The SESAC Subcommittee on Fire Protection, after reviewing
pertinent federal regulations and guidelines issued by professional
associations, drafted a shipyard employment fire protection standard
(SESAC, Ex. 9). However, not all of its provisions were written in
regulatory language and the provisions did not address all of the
issues that need to be considered in an OSHA rulemaking.
The shipyard employment workgroup of the Maritime Advisory
Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (MACOSH) briefly discussed
fire protection and negotiated rulemaking at its September 1995 meeting
in New Orleans, Louisiana. Members urged OSHA to proceed with a fire
protection standard, although some members suggested the MACOSH
shipyard employment workgroup take up the fire protection issues if
OSHA was unable to do a fire protection negotiated rulemaking.
On June 6, 1996, OSHA announced its intent to establish a Fire
Protection in Shipyard Employment Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory
Committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the
Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA)(61 FR 28824). The Committee would
negotiate issues associated with developing a notice of proposed
rulemaking to regulate fire hazards in shipyard employment. The
Committee would be made up of representatives of the parties interested
in, or affected by, the outcome of the proposed rule. OSHA asked
interested parties to submit their nominations for membership or
request representation on the Committee. The Agency planned public
meetings for the Committee along the United States coastlines in an
effort to provide small employers with the access they needed to
participate in this rulemaking effort.
II. The Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment Negotiated Rulemaking
Advisory Committee
Negotiated rulemaking is a process by which a proposed rule is
developed through negotiation among a committee composed of
representatives of all the interests that will be significantly
affected by the rule. Negotiation allows interested parties to discuss
possible approaches to various issues and arrive at jointly agreed or
acceptable provisions for a standard. The negotiation process involves
a mutual education of the parties on the reasons for different
positions on the issues as well as on the concerns about the practical
impact of various approaches.
The process is started by the Agency's identification of all
interests potentially affected by the rulemaking under consideration.
To help in this identification process, the Agency publishes a notice
in the Federal Register, called ``an intent to negotiate,'' which
identifies a preliminary list of interests and requests public comment.
Also included in this notice is a statement that the Agency intends to
negotiate and develop a proposed rule; a description of the subject and
scope of the rule to be developed and the issues to be considered; a
proposed agenda and schedule for completing the work of the committee;
and even a possible list of persons who may be nominated.
After receiving comment, the Agency chooses an advisory committee
of those nominated to represent these various interests. Representation
on the committee may be direct, that is, each member represents a
specific interest, or indirect, through coalitions of parties formed
for this purpose. An Agency representative is a member of the
committee, representing the Federal government's own set of interests.
The negotiated rulemaking advisory committee is chaired by a mediator,
who facilitates the negotiation process.
Once a negotiated rulemaking committee reaches consensus on the
provisions of a proposed rule, the Agency, consistent with its legal
obligations, uses this as the basis of its proposed standard, which is
published in the Federal Register. This provides the required public
notice and allows for a public comment period. Other participants and
other interested parties retain their rights to comment, participate in
an informal hearing (if requested), and seek judicial review. OSHA
anticipates, however, that the pre-proposal consensus reached by the
Committee will effectively narrow the number of controversial issues in
the subsequent rulemaking.
The Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 (5 U.S.C. 561 et seq.) (NRA)
allows OSHA to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee if it is
determined that using the negotiated rulemaking procedure is in the
public interest. As noted above, OSHA has made this determination for
this rulemaking activity. Each committee member participates in
resolving the interests and concerns of other members instead of
leaving it up to OSHA to bridge different points of view. A key
principle of negotiated rulemaking is that agreement is reached by
consensus of all the interests. The NRA defines consensus as unanimous
concurrence among the interests represented on a negotiated rulemaking
committee, unless the committee itself unanimously agrees to use a
different definition of consensus.
The Agency determined that the selection criteria listed in the NRA
were met, and that there was a need to issue fire protection
requirements that would apply to all shipyard employment. Finally,
parties representing significant interests requested that OSHA use the
negotiated rulemaking process on subpart P and acknowledged the need
for a new standard.
[[Page 76217]]
The members of the Committee are: Chris Myskowski, U.S. Coast
Guard; Paul Jensen, NIOSH; Joseph V. Daddura, Office of Maritime
Standards, Occupational Safety and Health Administration; G. F. Hurley,
Norfolk Naval Shipyard; Richard Duffy, International Association of
Firefighters (AFL-CIO, CLC); E.P. Kaiser , South Tidewater Association
of Ship Repairs, Inc.; Guy Colonna, National Fire Protection
Association; Russ Sill, Portland Fire Bureau; Alton Glass, United Steel
Workers of America (AFL-CIO, CLC), who was later replaced by John
Molovich; George Broussard, Bollinger's Shipbuilding and Ship Repair,
who was later replaced by Mark Duley, Walker Boat Yard, Inc.; Glenn
Harris, Ingalls Shipbuilding; Donald Mozick, Atlantic Marine, who was
later replaced by Terry Guidry, Bollinger's Shipbuilding and Ship
Repair; Michael Buchet, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, who was later replaced by Joseph Durst; J.D. Paulson, National
Steel & Shipbuilding Co., Peter Schmidt, Office of Specialty Compliance
Programs, Washington State Department of Labor and Industry.
The first meeting of the Committee was held in Portland, Oregon, on
October 15, 16, and 17, 1996, and was open to the public, as were all
subsequent meetings. (All minutes and documents from the Committee
meetings can be found in Exs. 5-1 through 5-. Minutes were recorded by
OSHA staff for the Committee.) During this organizational meeting, the
members were charged with their duties and procedural matters were
addressed. The members adopted ground rules for the Committee and set
forth substantive issues that needed to be resolved. The rulemaking
process was explained in depth to the Committee members, so that they
would understand their role in the process. SESAC's proposal on fire
protection in shipyards was given to the Committee.
Several examples of firefighting were given by members of the
Committee and discussions were held after each example, including how
small businesses contact outside fire departments for assistance with
firefighting. Workgroups were established for the following areas: Fire
Watch, Safe Work Practices, Fire Response, and Fire Protection. These
workgroups were charged with producing a draft regulatory text and
rationale for their parts of the safety standard. These drafts were to
include definitions and several options in areas where the members of
the workgroup did not agree. The Committee agreed to include sea trials
in the scope of this regulation. Also at this meeting, an overview and
history of the SESAC Draft Proposed Standard for Fire Protection was
presented by a member of SESAC's workgroup. The draft, text, and
rationale of SESAC's recommendations were reviewed. As was to become
routine at meetings, the Committee and other participants toured nearby
shipyards. They were MarCom Inc., Vancouver, Washington (small
shipyard); Diversified Marine Incorporated, Portland, Oregon (small
shipyard); and Cascade General, Portland, Oregon (large shipyard).
The second Committee meeting was held in Jacksonville, Florida on
February 4, 5, and 6, 1997. The Committee discussed several key issues:
Should subpart P--Fire Protection for Shipyard Employment--apply to all
shipyard employment? How will the standard affect out-of-yard/plant
firefighters such as those employed by a municipal fire department?
What controls and work practices will provide adequate protection for
workers? Should OSHA require hot work permits? Should OSHA require
training for all firefighters? Should OSHA incorporate U.S. Coast Guard
regulations in this standard? Is there any difference in controls and
work practices on land-side verses on board vessels and vessel
sections? Should OSHA require the employer to secure (deactivate) all
firefighting systems on board vessels when they arrive in the yard?
Should OSHA require each shipyard to have an in-yard/plant fire
brigade? Should OSHA require written fire plans for land side and on
board vessels? If so, what provisions need to be included in the plans?
Should OSHA include a requirement for de-watering (removal of
firefighting water from the vessel) of vessels when fighting a fire on
board a vessel? What advances in fire technology have occurred since
OSHA's general industry standards were published that should be
incorporated into the shipyard employment standard? Should OSHA include
technical information in an appendix or appendices? If so, should
appendices be mandatory?
The Committee had a lengthy discussion about OSHA's jurisdiction.
OSHA has no jurisdiction over municipal firefighters, but states and
territories with OSHA-approved State Plans are required to have
standards for state, county, and local government entities that are at
least as protective as Federal OSHA's.
Small employer representatives included: T.L. James & Company,
Houma, Louisiana; Halter Marine, New Orleans, Louisiana; and Alabama
Shipyard/Atlantic Marine, Mobile Alabama. A Chicago municipal
firefighter also attended. Committee members and the public
participants at this meeting took a tour of Atlantic Marine (small
shipyard).
A Fire Watch section workgroup met at Charleston, South Carolina,
on March 18, 1997. The workgroup was tasked with developing proposals
to be presented to the full Committee. Discussions included the Navy's
NAVSEA 00907 Fire Prevention and Housekeeping standard of September 13,
1996. The workgroup agreed that NAVSEA 00907 was not applicable to the
safety of workers because its focus was on the protection of property.
The workgroup also agreed on two proposals to present to the full
Committee: That an employee performing hot work should never be his or
her own fire watch, and that training requirements should be
performance oriented. For example, for training employers could use
stand-up tool-box safety meetings or written training documents as a
basis for appropriate training sessions. Suggestions for identifying a
fire watch included: Stickers on hats, arm bands, and vests. The topic
of live-fire training was raised as an issue for the full Committee to
consider.
The third public meeting of the Committee was held in Lockport,
Louisiana, on April 8, 9, and 10, 1997 (Ex. 5-3). The Committee's
workgroups continued working on the issues of scope and application,
controls and work practices, fire brigades, written fire plans,
technological advances in fire protection, costs of fire protection,
and appendices. There were discussions about small employer
difficulties and on Coast Guard jurisdiction over vessels during sea
trials. Preliminary drafts of proposed changes and preamble language
were circulated among committee members for review and comment. At this
meeting the Committee decided that issues upon which general agreement
could not be reached would be raised for public comment in the
proposal's preamble. By doing so, an issue, such as live fire training,
would be considered by the public and OSHA and could become part of a
final rule. Small employer representatives in attendance were: Walker
Boat Yard; Halter Marine; Leevac Shipyard; Boland Marine; and Bollinger
Shipyard. The Committee members and other participants toured the
Bollinger Lockport facility and two other Bollinger facilities in the
area (small shipyards).
The fourth public meeting of the Committee was held in Baltimore,
Maryland on July 15, 16, and 17, 1997
[[Page 76218]]
(Ex. 5-6). During this meeting the Committee broke out into its
workgroups and continued to develop proposed preamble and regulatory
text on the issues that were identified in previous meetings. OSHA
staff explained the economic feasibility issues that are brought into
rulemaking and gave a briefing on ``plain language.'' Carryover
discussion items from the previous meeting were OSHA's lack of
jurisdiction over civilian guests on board vessels during sea trials,
municipal fire departments, and volunteers. The discussions produced
several examples of current practices from members of the Committee.
There was a discussion about the hazards of fixed extinguishing
systems and members gave examples of current practices. A large West
Coast shipyard disconnects the vessel's system because they do not want
it to be accidentally activated. A representative from small shipyard
on the inland waterways noted that he prefers not to deactivate a
vessel's fixed extinguishing system, especially for a short-term repair
job. For this type of short-term repair job, the Committee agreed that
there are two options: Disconnect the entire system or train employees.
Some members indicated that on some manned Navy vessels, deactivating
the fixed extinguishing system is not an option. It was also noted
that, on U.S. flag vessels the U.S. Coast Guard requires a time delay
on fixed systems to allow employees to evacuate before the
extinguishing agent is released or automatic locking doors are
activated. There was an incident in Spain where a small fire on board a
vessel was under control locally when another employee pulled the fixed
fire system, causing fatalities. A presentation was given on a fire
aboard the Melvin H. Baker II, which occurred during a hot work
operation and caused a fatality.
There was also a discussion of how a fire watch can alert others
before he or she exits the dangerous areas, which fire watch duties
should be included in safe work practices, and the important role of
the fire watch in preventing fires and loss of life. A workgroup was
established to work on the definitions section of the standard. Small
employers were represented by: Bollingers Shipyard, Lockport,
Louisiana, and the National Shipbuilders Association, Arlington,
Virginia.
The fifth meeting of the Committee was held in Paducah, Kentucky,
on October 7, 8, and 9, 1997 (Ex. 5-4). At the request of the
Shipbuilders Council of America (SCA), OSHA staff held a preliminary
meeting on October 6. This meeting was open to the public and SCA
invited small employers to be present. OSHA staff made presentations on
the negotiated rulemaking process, OSHA's standards writing process,
and the intent of the proposed Fire Protection standard. The OSHA
Project Attorney reviewed the ground rules for negotiated rulemaking
procedures, and answered more specific questions that the Committee had
raised, such as regulating small businesses. Some workgroups presented
their draft documents for discussion and approval by the full
Committee. Those documents that were approved by the Committee were
delivered to OSHA for further action. Some of the other topics of
discussion were: Sliding/rolling fire doors, inadvertent activation of
a ship's CO2 system, and live fire training. Small employer
representatives in attendance were: Bollinger's Shipyard, Lockport,
Louisiana; James Marine, Inc., Paducah, Kentucky; Cascade General,
Inc., Portland, Oregon; Newpark Shipbuilding & Repair, Houston, Texas;
Missouri Dry Dock, Cape Girardeau, Missouri; Mid South Towing,
Metropolis, Illinois; Sea River Maritime; and American Commercial
Marine Service Co. Unions representatives were present from Firefighter
Local 168, Paducah, Kentucky and IBEW Local 733, Pascagoula,
Mississippi. Committee members and the public participants toured two
small shipyards, Walker Boatyard and James Marine, Inc., Paducah,
Kentucky.
The sixth public meeting of the Committee was held in San Diego,
California, on February 24, 25, and 26, 1998 (Ex. 5-5). Discussions at
this meeting included the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA), the general industry (29 CFR part 1910)
regulations that apply to landside operations, and live fire training
for fire watches. During this meeting, the Committee approved the
regulatory text on hot work. Small employer representatives at this
meeting included: Bollinger's Shipyard, Louisiana; Walker Boat Yard,
Kentucky; Sea River Maritime; and South Tidewater Association of Ship
Repairers (STASR), Hampton Roads, Virginia. The Committee member
representing STASR noted that the negotiated rulemaking issues and
products are shared by the member with 121 STASR members, who are
mostly small employers. Committee members and the public participants
at this meeting took a tour of the NASSCO and the NAVAL shipyards.
The seventh meeting of the Committee was held in Linthicum,
Maryland on June 15, 16, and 17, 1998 (Ex. 5-9). The Committee decided
that since MACOSH has supported the Committee and intends to review its
products, the Committee's recommendation for a proposed standard will
be made available to them. A lengthy discussion was held on shipboard
fixed fire protection systems, during which the Committee members
learned that only CO2 systems have caused fatalities. This
led to further discussion about whether or not an employer would rely
on a vessel's fixed system as the primary source of fire protection.,
and prompted a page-by-page review of the fire response section. Topics
discussed included the term ``qualified instructor,'' personal
protective equipment, hose testing, and how long records must be kept.
During the second day of this meeting, the Acting Director of
OSHA's Office of Regulatory Analysis presented an overview of what
requirements OSHA's economic analysis must meet. A representative from
the Small Business Administration (SBA), Office of Advocacy also
answered questions from the Committee and public on issues related to
small businesses. After a review, the Committee voted to accept the
preamble of shipboard fixed systems. The Committee further agreed to
not bring sections of 29 CFR part 1910 over into 29 CFR part 1915 for
land-side fixed systems, because members prefer that fire
extinguishers, stand pipes, or sprinklers conform to NFPA 10, Standard
for Portable fire Extinguishers, 1998 Edition (Ex. 20-1) rather than
the older OSHA general industry standards for this type of equipment.
The issue of records retention was reviewed. It was agreed that the
proposal will state that records must be kept and made available for
one year; however, an issue will be raised on one year versus three
years retention. Large shipyards typically keep their records
indefinitely, but in the opinion of several of their representatives,
they would rather not be told how long records must be kept.
Small employer representatives at this meeting included:
Bollinger's Shipyard, Louisiana; Walker Boat Yard, Kentucky; and South
Tidewater Association of Ship Repairers, Hampton Roads, Virginia. A
representative from National Shipbuilders Association, Arlington,
Virginia, also attended.
The eighth meeting of the Committee was held in Biloxi,
Mississippi, on September 9, 10, and 11, 1998 (Ex. 5-7). Topics of
discussion included the progress that the definitions workgroup was
making and the outreach programs previously completed. The public was
polled about their expectations from
[[Page 76219]]
this negotiated rulemaking on fire protection. Other discussions were
held on what to do with burning torches, what the extent of the
standard was, where fire watches are not needed, and how to ensure that
the 29 CFR part 1910 requirements are updated and that they cover the
same work as subpart P.
The following list of issues was distributed and discussed by the
Committee: Can a fire response count as a drill? Is the inspection
required in the proposal's section 504(a) and (b) already covered in
1915.14, or does the proposal mandate that all areas--other than those
that require a Marine Chemist or Shipyard Competent Person's
inspection--be inspected before hot work? In section 505, Fire
Response, should OSHA require proximity firefighting protective
clothing for all yards and fire departments? Should an employee have
the right to stop work if the employee felt he or she was placed in a
dangerous situation? Does the committee want to require the employer to
instruct on-site contractors on their fire plans? What is an
``authorized area?'' Is a welding shop, sheet metal shop, fabricating
shop, or subassembly area to be considered an authorized area? If so,
does the Committee want the employer to post signs to notify employees?
How does the employer determine the authorized area? Is it the
Committee's understanding that the employer is to survey his shipyard
to determine and label all working areas? How is the issue of municipal
fire departments' response to shipyard fires to be explained in the
preamble? How can the Committee ensure that the public understands that
this standard does not apply to state, county, or municipal fire
departments?
Other issues discussed included: Proximity suits; a model training
program for fire watches; employee participation; fire watch training;
the requirements of subpart B, Confined and Enclosed Spaces and Other
Dangerous Atmospheres in Shipyard Employment, that could apply in the
hot work section; training requirements for all shipyard employees
versus training only fire watches; liaisons between shipyards and
outside fire responders; and the proposed requirement that all fire
hoses used by the employer being labeled, tested, and maintained in
accordance with NFPA 1962-1998 Standard for the Care, Use, and Service
Testing of Fire Hose Including Couplings and Nozzles, 1998 Edition (Ex.
20-2). The Committee agreed on the regulatory text of proposed
Sec. Sec. 1915.505 and 1915.506.
A small shipyard representative requested that OSHA have an
extended compliance date for employers with 250 or fewer employees.
Shipyards with more than 250 employees typically have a full-time
designated safety and health professional, based on the experience of
the National Shipbuilders Association. A labor representative opposed
the request for a delay in implementation for small employers. It was
suggested that OSHA review the issue for its proposal.
Small employers were represented at this meeting by Bollinger
Machine Shop & Shipyard, Inc., Louisiana; Walker Boat Yard, Kentucky,
South Tidewater Association of Ship Repairers, Hampton Roads, Virginia;
National Shipbuilders Association, Arlington, Virginia; First Wave
Marine, Houston, Texas; Bender Shipbuilding, Mobile, AL; and Omega
Shipyard, Moss Point, Mississippi.
The ninth meeting of the Committee was held in Houston, Texas, on
February 5-7, 2002 (Ex. 5-8 ). OSHA staff incorporated the agreed upon
changes made during this meeting into the Committee's working document.
A motion was made for a full Committee vote on the document. The
Committee unanimously approved, agreeing on all the issues and topics.
A reworked package of the regulatory text including section number
changes with training in its own section was mailed to the Committee
March 2002.
Small employers were represented at this meeting by Bollinger
Machine Shop & Shipyard, Inc., Louisiana and Texas; Walker Boat Yard,
Kentucky; South Tidewater Association of Ship Repairers, Hampton Roads,
Virginia; National Shipbuilders Council, Washington, D.C.; First Wave
Marine, Houston, Texas; Trinity Marine Products; Moon Engineering, Co.,
Portsmouth, Virginia; and Atlantic Marine/Alabama Shipyard.
Informal meeting minutes were provided by OSHA staff for all
meetings. These minutes were approved by the Committee and included in
OSHA's Docket S-051 (Ex. 5). The Agency has taken the Committee's
recommendations for a proposal for fire protection in shipyard
employment and editorially revised them into the proposed standard that
follows this preamble.
III. Pertinent Legal Authority
The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C.
651 et seq. (``the Act'') is to ``assure so far as possible every
working man and woman in the nation safe and healthful working
conditions and to preserve our human resources' (29 U.S.C. 651(b)). To
achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor to issue
and enforce occupational safety and health standards. (See 29 U.S.C.
655(a) (authorizing summary adoption of existing consensus and federal
standards within two years of the Act's enactment), 655(b) (authorizing
promulgation of standards pursuant to notice and comment), 654(b)
(requiring employers to comply with OSHA standards).) A safety or
health standard is a standard ``which requires conditions, or the
adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods, operations,
or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or
healthful employment or places of employment.'' 29 U.S.C. 652(8).
A standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate within the
meaning of section 652(8) if it substantially reduces or eliminates
significant risk; is economically feasible; technologically feasible;
cost effective; is consistent with prior Agency action or is a
justified departure; is supported by substantial evidence; and is
better able to effectuate the Act's purposes than any national
consensus standard it supersedes. See 58 FR 16612-16616 (March 30,
1993).
A standard is technologically feasible if the protective measures
it requires already exist, can be brought into existence with available
technology, or can be created with technology that can reasonably be
expected to be developed. American Textile Mfrs. Institute v. OSHA 452
U.S. 490, 513 (1981) (``ATMI''), American Iron and Steel Institute v.
OSHA, 939 F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir 1991) (``AISI'').
A standard is economically feasible if industry can absorb or pass
on the cost of compliance without threatening its long term
profitability or competitive structure. See ATMI, 452 U.S. at 530 n.
55; AISI, 939 F.2d at 980. A standard is cost effective if the
protective measures it requires are the least costly of the available
alternatives that achieve the same level of protection. ATMI, 453 U.S.
at 514 n. 32; International Union, UAW v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 665, 668 (D.C.
Cir. 1994) (``LOTO II'').
Section 6(b)(7) authorizes OSHA to include among a standard's
requirements labeling, monitoring, medical testing and other
information gathering and transmittal provisions. 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7).
All standards must be highly protective. See 58 FR 16614-16615;
LOTO II, 37 F.3d at 668. Finally, whenever practical, standards shall
``be expressed in terms of objective criteria and of the performance
desired.'' Id.
[[Page 76220]]
IV. Summary and Explanation of Proposal Rule
Section 1915.501 General Provisions
In paragraph (a), OSHA states that the purpose of this standard is
to require employers to protect all employees from fire hazards in
shipyard employment, including employees engaged in fire response
activities.
Paragraph (b) describes the scope of the proposal, which is all
shipyard employment work, including work on vessels and vessel sections
and land-side operations, regardless of geographic location. The scope
of this subpart is consistent with that in the maritime standards'
subpart B Confined and Enclosed Spaces and Other Dangerous Atmospheres
in Shipyard Employment and subpart I Personal Protective Equipment for
Shipyard Employment. Fire response provided by the employer's workers,
whether they be part of a fire brigade, shipyard fire department, or
simply designated by the employer, is within the scope of this
standard. There are several reasons for including all shipyard
employment in the scope of this standard: (1) The requirements are
tailored to the unique risks in shipyard employment; (2) subpart P will
provide a single source of standards for fire protection that will be
easier for training and to understand than multiple sources or sets of
rules; (3) a comprehensive standard, referencing part 1910 where
necessary, will be applicable throughout shipyard employment addressing
hazards associated with fire watch situations, ship fire suppression
systems, fire response procedures and landside fire operations.
OSHA has preliminarily concluded, and the Committee agrees, that a
comprehensive standard applying to all shipyard employment operations
will be highly protective of shipyard employment workers working on
vessels, vessel sections, or landside operations and offer the best
protection against fire hazards.
Shipyard employment can consist of shipbuilding, ship conversion,
ship repairing or shipbreaking, and related employments. Shipyards may
be dedicated to one type of work, such as new ship construction, or a
shipyard may perform any or all types of shipyard work. The
construction of a new vessel may be a single project or may involve
separate fabrication of key components which are then joined together.
Vessel sections may be fabricated on land within the shipyard, or may
be built in specialty facilities inland of the shipyard and then
transported to the yard. The scope must have broad coverage because
shipyard employers increasingly engage in non-traditional shipyard
employment such as steel fabrication of products not directly related
to ships. This could include work such as construction of railroad
cars, bridges, tunnel sections, smoke stacks, and boilers. It could
also include operations performed during the final outfitting of
vessels under construction or repair. Examples of such operations
include technical support from the providers of shipboard electronic
equipment as well as suppliers of internal furnishings. It does not
include shoreside support services, such as those provided by vending
equipment and mail delivery companies. The Agency is also proposing
that any fire brigade, shipyard fire department, contracted outside
fire response organization, or federal fire response organization be
covered by this subpart if the responder is located at or responds to
shipyard employment facilities. OSHA recognizes that a number of small
employers perform vessel repair in non-traditional shipyards and
intends to cover them.
Ship repair work could involve replacing damaged hull sections,
outdated systems or components, or modifying a vessel to increase its
capacity or change its designed purpose.
Shipbreaking could consist of the partial removal of vessel
components or it could be the complete dismantling of a vessel (also
known as ``scrapping'') for the salvage value of its parts.
Shipyard employment can also consist of support operations
necessary for vessel construction and repair. Metal fabrication,
machine shops, electrical and paint shops are typical facilities that
can be found within a shipyard. Many vessel sections and vessel
components are built in these shops more easily than they can be built
on board a vessel. The materials are the same and often the hazards
encountered are similar.
Shipyard employment also occurs on vessels and vessel sections
within the navigable waters of the United States. The provisions of the
Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), 33 U.S.C. 901
et seq., only applied to shipyards. Under the OSH Act, jurisdiction was
extended to include workers wherever they were working.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 29 CFR 1910.11(b). The LHWCA limitations on coverage
that appear in the maritime standards were not adopted under section
6(a) of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 655(a). See also the preamble for the
rulemaking in which the shipyard employment standards were
consolidated, 47 FR 16986 (April 20, 1982). This OSHA policy was
accepted by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission in
Dravo Corporation, 10 BNA OSHC 1655 (No. 14818, 1982.) Contra Dravo
Corporation v. OSHRC & Marshall, 613 F.2d 1227 (3rd Cir. 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA has included the phrase ``regardless of geographic location''
in the scope so that protection is afforded employees wherever they
work: On vessels, vessel sections, land side, or any other location
they are sent to by their employers. This has been Agency policy on
shipyard employment and is in the scope of both subparts B and I.
The Committee also urged OSHA to cover work in the traditional
shipyard and dock as well as on vessels during sea trials or at anchor.
At the Portland, Oregon, meeting, the Committee noted that most ships
on sea trials are still under construction with shipyard workers on
board. At the Baltimore, Maryland, meeting, Committee members reviewed
OSHA Instruction CPL 2-1.20, ``OSHA/U.S. Coast Guard Authority Over
Vessels,'' dated November 8, 1996. Particular attention was given to
paragraph I which delineated geographical considerations for
enforcement over all vessels. The CPL states that ``OSHA only has
authority over vessels when they are operating within the limits of
State territorial waters.'' It goes on to define those waters as
extending three nautical miles seaward from the coast line of coastal
States, ``except for the Gulf Coast of Florida, Texas and Puerto Rico
where the territorial waters extend for 3 marine leagues (approximately
9 nautical miles).''
The Committee concluded that the fire hazard exposure to workers is
significant, whether a vessel or part is being constructed, repaired,
or broken up and whether it is in the shipyard or dockside, at anchor,
or underway for testing. Therefore, the requirements proposed in this
subpart would apply broadly, including vessels underway within OSHA's
jurisdictional boundaries, or at anchor, dockside, in dry dock, or on
land.
In paragraph (c) of Sec. 1915.501, OSHA seeks to encourage
employee participation in shipyard safety and health program
activities. OSHA proposes that the employer must provide ways for
employees and employee representatives to participate in developing and
periodically reviewing programs and policies adopted to comply with
this standard. At the September 10, 1998, meeting held in Biloxi,
Mississippi, the Committee recommended regulatory text regarding
employee participation and involvement. The Committee saw this as a
crucial component of the
[[Page 76221]]
proposed standard and OSHA agrees. This proposal is consistent with the
Department of Labor's policy to involve employees in decision-making
processes affecting safety and health at their worksites.
Paragraph (d) of the proposed fire protection rule sets minimum
requirements for exchanging information and coordinating
responsibilities for fire protection among host and contract employers.
These requirements are fundamental to any effective fire safety program
on a multi-employer worksite.
A multi-employer workplace is defined for the purposes of this rule
as a workplace where there is a host employer and at least one contract
employer. This proposed requirement is necessary because the existence
of additional employers and their employees at a workplace makes
addressing safety and health conditions at the workplace more complex.
For example, at a multi-employer worksite, one employer may introduce
hazards into the workplace that employees of other employers may not
know about. All employers need information about hazards present at the
worksite to enable them to fulfill their obligations to protect
workers. For these reasons, communication and coordination among
employers are essential.
Failure to communicate about hazards between employers and their
employees can be tragic. For example, the 1989 explosion at a Phillips
66 chemical complex in Houston, which killed 23 people and injured more
than 100 workers, resulted largely from the failure to coordinate
safety and health activities on a multi-employer worksite. A Department
of Labor/OSHA 1990 report to the President concerning this catastrophe
concluded:
The catastrophe at the Phillips Complex not only emphasized the
need for effective implementation of good safety management systems
in the petrochemical industry but also raised questions about
diffused responsibility for employee safety at worksites where one
or more contractors are engaged in work for a company. OSHA had
addressed this issue at construction sites, but not at petrochemical
plants like the Phillips Complex, where a contractor was regularly
employed to perform key maintenance operations and was directly
involved in the October 1989 disaster (Ex. 10-5).
Events like the Phillips explosion and the increased reliance on
using contractors throughout the shipyard industry have led OSHA to
conclude that responsibility for fire safety must be specifically
assigned to all employers, who must then be held accountable for
discharging those responsibilities.
The need for and benefits of coordinating activities and exchanging
information on multi-employer worksites are widely recognized, and
requirements such as those being proposed here have been implemented in
many workplaces throughout general industry, construction, and maritime
industries. For example, the Chemical Manufacturers Association (now
the American Chemistry Council) and the American Petroleum Institute
state that improved occupational safety and health performance is one
benefit that occurs when owners and contractors work together to
enhance the management of contractor-related safety and health
programs. Similarly, the National Safety Council has observed that ``a
strong partnership between [host and contract employers] can reduce or
eliminate risks, injury, and illnesses; help control health and
insurance costs; and improve employee production and morale.'' In the
shipyard industry it is common practice to hire contractors for
nonroutine or specialized work situations. For example, painters,
joiners, carpenters and scaffolding contractors are routinely used in
shipyard employment.
The requirement for host and contract employer coordination and for
the exchange of information about safety and health conditions on
multi-employer worksites is consistent with Congress' desire that
employees be informed of the hazards to which they are exposed.
(Sections 6(b)(7) and 8(c)(1) of the OSH Act.) Employees can only be
informed of the hazards to which they are exposed if information about
such hazards is communicated among employers on multi-employer
worksites. Such an exchange of information is also necessary to make
sure that all hazards in the workplace are identified and that the
responsibility for controlling them and protecting employees can be
appropriately allocated among all employers on the site.
Under the proposal host employers must inform all employers at the
work site about the contents of the host's fire safety plan--including
hazards, controls, and emergency procedures--and assign any appropriate
responsibilities for fire safety to other employers. The Committee is
in agreement with this approach to multi-employer worksites (Ex. 5-8).
The employer representatives on the Committee felt that the shipyard
should not be responsible for training contractors.
In Sec. 1915.509 Definitions, the host employer is defined as an
employer who is in charge of coordinating work or hiring other
employers to perform work at a multi-employer worksite. Proposed Sec.
1915.501(d)(1) establishes the responsibilities of host employers.
First, host employers must make sure that information about fire
hazards, controls, safety and health rules, and emergency procedures is
given to all the contract employers. The information includes whatever
a contract employer must have to carry out his or her own duties as an
employer under this rule. Contract employers need to inform employees
of the fire hazards to which they are exposed at that worksite, the
controls in place to reduce or eliminate those fire hazards, the safety
and health procedures to be followed, and the steps to be taken in a
fire emergency. Second, host employers must ensure appropriate fire
safety and health responsibilities are assigned to contract employers
at the worksite.
Contract employers must know about other hazards related to fire
their employees may encounter at the workplace. Such knowledge allows
contract employers to effectively plan and safely carry out their work
and understand procedures, such as what to do when a fire alarm is
sounded to evacuate a vessel. This information lessens the likelihood
that accidents will occur. A host employer's workplace may have fire
hazards of many kinds: toxic chemical, flammable or combustible liquids
or dusts, electrical hazards, fall hazards, pressurized systems,
confined spaces, and many more. Under this standard host employers must
inform contract employers of the hazards related to fire they are
likely to encounter to enable them, in turn, to protect their
employees.
The Committee recognized that in the event of a fire emergency,
contract employers must be able to take appropriate actions to protect
their employees. Therefore, OSHA requires the host employer to make
sure that all appropriate information about fire safety and evacuation
procedures is conveyed to all contract employers working in shipyard
employment.
OSHA is also requiring in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) that the host
employer make sure that fire protection responsibilities are
specifically assigned to the various employers working at a multi-
employer worksite. The host employer must make sure that fire safety
and health responsibilities are assigned as appropriate to other
employers at the worksite. Some of these responsibilities include fire
hazard abatement, informing employees of fire hazards before exposure,
and stopping work because of an imminent danger
[[Page 76222]]
situation. A host employer might assign a contract employer the
responsibility of preventing employees (other than the contract
employer's employees) from being exposed to a hazard generated by the
contract employer. For example, the host employer might require the
contract employer to control the area around a painter to ensure that
hot work is not permitted while painting is in progress. More
generally, the host employer must, in conjunction with the contract
employers, decide who is to train employees and control which hazards.
The need to coordinate across organizational lines on a multi-employer
worksite makes the clear assignment of responsibilities across those
lines essential to achieve the overall goal of reducing employee
exposure to potential fire hazards.
The proposed definition of ``contract employer'' in Sec. 1915.509
Definitions is an employer who performs work under contract for a host
employer or to another employer under contract to the host employer at
the worksite. This definition specifically excludes employers who
provide incidental services that do not influence shipyard employment
(such as mail delivery or office supply services). The Agency
recognizes that many vendors who work under contract to host employers
do not engage in work that exposes their employees to the job-related
hazards present at the site and do not themselves introduce new hazards
to the site. This definition also makes sure, however, that contract
employees engaged in work operations that do place them at risk, such
as temporary labor (e.g. tank cleaners), blasting, and paint
contractors are protected by the proposed provisions regarding multi-
employer worksites.
As noted in this discussion, OSHA has provided additional
definitions of ``host employer'' and ``contractor employer'' in order
to help clarify multi-employer worksite provisions. In other places,
the term ``employer,'' which is already defined in 29 CFR part 1915, is
used to describe duties that are generally the host employer's as the
employer with control of the overall worksite. We believe the intent of
this approach is clear. The host employer has overall responsibility
for fire protection at the worksite. However, in order to have
effective fire protection, all employees on the site need to be aware
of the hazards and the procedures established to deal with fires,
regardless of who employs them. And all of the hazards on the site need
to be identified and controlled, regardless of which employer has
introduced the hazard to the workplace. Thus the provisions of the
standard anticipate that an exchange of information will be required to
ensure that fire protection is handled in a comprehensive and effective
manner, and any necessary coordination of activities will occur. The
Agency invites input on these terms and the way they are used in the
proposed rule. Is it clear which employer is responsible in all of the
proposed provisions? Is there another way to define or clarify which
employer has responsibility for implementing the requirements?
The Agency is considering dropping the phrase ``safety and health
rules,'' in paragraph (d)(i) that refers to the contents of the fire
safety plan and dropping the phrase ``safety and health'' in reference
to contract employers' responsibilities for fire protection activities
in paragraph (d)(ii). The Agency has concluded that the reference to
``health'' or ``safety and health'' rules or responsibilities is
confusing and vague in the fire safety proposal and that the scope of
issues should be confined to fire safety.
Paragraph (d)(2) of Sec. 1915.501, sets forth the proposed
responsibilities for contract employer's. The contract employer must
inform the host employer of any fire hazards that could be created by
the work being performed by his or her employees, and what steps the
contract employer must take to address those hazards. In addition, OSHA
proposes that any hazards that were not identified by the host
employer, but were identified by the contract employer, must be shared
with the host employer.
Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(i) requires contract employers to make
sure that the host employer is aware of the fire related hazards
presented by the contract employer's work and how the contract employer
is addressing them. The work performed by contract employers is
commonly beyond the knowledge and expertise of the host employer and
typically is not a part of the host employer's routine work. Contract
employers are often hired precisely because they have special
expertise. They offer a wide range of services, such as equipment
repair and maintenance, blasting, painting, atmospheric testing of
spaces, tank cleaning, and selected scaffold erection. Consequently,
their work can present a set of hazards that are unfamiliar to the host
employer. For these reasons, OSHA believes that the proposed rule must
include minimum requirements for contract employers on multi-employer
workplaces to report fire hazards to host employers. Proposed paragraph
(d)(2)(ii) requires that contract employers advise host employers of
any fire hazards unidentified by the host employer. In the course of
his or her work, the contract employer may create or uncover fire
hazards. The host employer must be made aware of all of the hazards,
regardless of who created them, to enable him or her to coordinate the
management of safety and health at a given multi-employer worksite.
Section 1915.502 Fire Safety Plan
The requirements for fire safety plans contained in this section
were developed by the Committee based upon their combined professional
experience and current industry practices. OSHA concurs with these
recommendations. OSHA does not have any requirements for fire safety
plans in its current standards.
The Committee recommended a program that would establish the
location, type, and capacity of firefighting equipment such as
extinguishers, fire hose and stand pipes, smoke detectors, automatic
sprinklers, and other fixed firefighting systems in accordance with
applicable fire codes. The plan must provide for the routine
inspection, maintenance, and replacement of this equipment and mandate
training for new workers and refresher training for all shipyard
employment workers. Routine fire prevention inspections would be
conducted by knowledgeable personnel with authority to correct
deficiencies. The program would establish: Effective fire prevention
measures for control of flammable and non-flammable compressed gases;
identification and the control of ignition sources; the control of
combustible materials; welding and hot work procedures and designated
locations covering all operations (in addition to locations where hot
work is authorized); and designated emergency evacuation routes and
procedures.
The Committee felt that such a plan must be written. A written plan
would enable employers and employees to see how the employer intends to
protect workers; enable employers to readily exchange information;
provide continuity of procedures; and would provide a practical means
of communication to fire response organizations. Updating the plan to
reflect changing fire control technology or changing the plan to
reflect different fire hazards in different work situations is readily
accomplished with a written plan. The Committee rejected the notion of
verbal exchange as the equivalent of an established written fire safety
plan.
In paragraph (a) of Sec. 1915.502, OSHA proposes that the employer
develop and implement a written fire safety plan that covers all the
actions that employers
[[Page 76223]]
and employees must take to ensure employee safety in the event of a
fire. OSHA is also proposing to include a note to the paragraph
referring readers to a model fire safety plan that is included as
Appendix A, a non-mandatory appendix to this subpart.
Appendix A contains a suggested outline for a model fire safety
plan that employers could follow. Members of the small business
community who participated in Committee negotiations strongly
recommended that OSHA offer guidance for developing a fire safety plan.
The purpose of the proposed appendix is to give guidance to any
employers who may not have the expertise available to develop their own
plan. If an employer chooses to use the model plan for a specific
worksite, following the outline and addressing particular conditions at
his or her specific worksite would meet the minimum requirements of
this section.
In paragraph (b) of Sec. 1915.502, OSHA sets forth the elements
that the employer must include in the fire safety plan. They are: The
identification of significant potential fire risks; procedures for
recognizing and reporting unsafe conditions; alarm procedures;
procedures for notifying employees of a fire emergency; procedures for
notifying fire response organizations of a fire emergency; procedures
for evacuation; procedures to account for all employees after an
evacuation; and the names, job titles, or departments for individuals
who can be contacted for further information about the plan. The
Committee identified these elements as essential components that every
effective plan must have. The Committee was particularly anxious for
the alarm procedures to address the distinctive signaling devices and
how they will be used to alert employers of fire and evacuation in a
particular shipyard. The Committee and OSHA recognized that each
shipyard may have its own unique alarm systems (e.g., steam whistles,
intercom, bells).
In paragraph (c) of Sec. 1915.502, OSHA proposes that the employer
must review the fire safety plan with each affected employee within 90
days of the effective date of this standard for employees who are
currently working; upon initial assignment for new employees; and
whenever the actions the employee must take under the plan change
because of a change in duties or a change in the plan.
Paragraph (d) of Sec. 1915.502 reflects the recommendations of the
Committee. Consistent with that, OSHA proposes that the employer must
also keep the plan readily accessible for review by employees, their
representatives, and OSHA; review and update the plan whenever
necessary but at least annually; certify in writing that each affected
employee has been informed of the plan; and give a copy of the plan to
any outside fire response organization that the employer expects to
respond to fires at a worksite, regardless of geographic location.
These requirements are necessary in order for the plan to be effective
in protecting employees.
In paragraph (e) of Sec. 1915.502, OSHA proposes as additional
responsibilities for contract employers, compliance with the host
employer's fire safety program. At any given time, because of the
nature of the work, there may be many employers within one particular
shipyard. The additional employers and employees cause an increase in
safety and health hazards in the worksite. OSHA's intent with this
paragraph is that all employers take responsible actions to reduce
these hazards when possible, and to alert other employers when hazards
exists. Recognition of hazards and response to emergencies in a safe
manner requires all employers on the site to follow the host employer's
fire safety plan.
Section 1915.503 Precautions for Hot Work
The purpose of this section is to reduce the potential of fire
hazards and to reduce the frequency and severity of any fires resulting
from hot work. Three elements are normally present for a fire to occur:
an ignition source, oxygen, and a fuel source. If one element is
removed, then a fire will not occur. The proposed requirements in this
paragraph are intended to prevent the combination of these three
elements from occurring at the same time.
The Committee's proposal focused on reducing the hazards associated
with both the fuel sources as well as the ignition sources for fires.
The Committee advocated removing any fuel source from the area where
hot work was to be performed. If that is not possible, then isolating
the fuels, using protection (shielding), or posting a fire watch can be
used to comply with the provision. These requirements reflect current
industry practices and the requirements associated with Sec. 1915.14
for flammable and combustible materials within confined and enclosed
spaces and other dangerous atmospheres. The Committee also identified
other materials that may be present that have properties that may
increase the hazards associated with a fire, such as oxidizers and
water reactive chemicals. The Committee's proposal would require the
employer to perform a hazard assessment as part of the decision-making
process in authorizing hot work. The Committee concluded that fires
resulting from hot work can be prevented through an authorization
procedure and proper inspection of the worksite before hot work. This
would involve identifying fire hazards and implementing appropriate
control measures that include removing hazards, inerting spaces,
shielding combustibles, or posting fire watches. The Committee believed
this would be an innovative approach that protects shipyard workers
from fire hazards while reflecting the best practices of the industry.
Following the Committee's recommendations, OSHA proposes that the
requirements of this standard apply to all hot work operations in
shipyard employment except those covered in subpart B of this part. The
purpose of OSHA's proposed requirement is to make sure that the
employer identifies all fire hazards in a hot work area. This section
is also based upon requirements adapted from the existing Sec. 1915.52
Fire Prevention, Sec. 1910.252 Welding, Cutting and Brazing, and from
an industry consensus standard, NFPA 51B-1998, Standard for Fire
Prevention in Use of Cutting and Welding Processes (Ex. 20-3).
In paragraph (a)(1) of Sec. 1915.503, OSHA is proposing that the
employer, in designating areas for hot work, must determine that such
areas do not contain potential fire hazards. The Committee recognized
that there are areas within the shipyard that may not require an
inspection before each hot work operation. These areas may, in fact, be
designed for hot work. They include fabricating shops, sub-assembly
areas, and welding and burning areas within shops, such as pipe,
boiler, and sheet metal shops. These areas are examples of what the
Committee considered to be ``Designated Areas'' along with certain
areas on board vessels and vessel sections. In ``designated areas'' the
hot work operations are regular and continuous as opposed to incidental
operations occurring throughout the yard. Nonetheless, such areas must
be initially inspected to establish them as ``designated areas'' and
then maintained as such, as proposed in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section.
The requirement for authorization of hot work in nondesignated
areas is addressed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. In paragraph
(a)(2)(i) of Sec. 1915.503, OSHA proposes that before authorizing hot
work in non-designated area, the employer must visually inspect the
area where hot work is to be performed, including adjacent spaces, to
[[Page 76224]]
identify potential fire hazards, unless a Marine Chemist's certificate
or shipyard Competent Person's log is used for the authorization. The
Committee recommended that this section include any area not covered by
subpart B of this part. As mentioned earlier, OSHA is not addressing
hot work in areas covered by subpart B Confined and Enclosed Spaces and
Other Dangerous Atmospheres in Shipyard Employment. This subpart
already covers the hazards of performing hot work in these areas.
Addressing them again in this subpart would be duplicative. OSHA
believes that by requiring authorization before hot work in the non-
designated areas, the employer will pre-plan the operation and thereby
identify and control the hazards associated with hot work.
OSHA notes that although Marine Chemists and Shipyard Competent
Persons have specific functions to perform under subpart B, this
paragraph recognizes that the employer may also use them to assess and
inspect both designated and nondesignated hot-work areas for potential
fire hazards.
The Committee considered whether the authorization of hot work
issued by the employer should be in a written form or whether a verbal
authorization would give equivalent safety. Currently all shipyards
handling repair or overhaul-type U.S. Navy contracts have written
authorization procedures because Navy work requires authorization (hot
work permits) as a standard item. On the other hand, shipyards that do
not handle Navy contracts allow employees to perform hot work following
either verbal or written authorizations. The Committee decided that
shipyard employers should have the flexibility to decide what type of
authorization is best suited for their hot-work operations. For
example, in many cases associated with new construction, hot work is
done with an authorization specifying that no special precautions are
required and no written authorization (permit) is issued. The intent
here is to enable the employer to perform the steps and to assess the
hazard each time before authorizing the hot work, but not necessarily
introduce the specification that requires a formal written permit.
Therefore, in this paragraph OSHA does not specify what form of
authorization must be issued.
In paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of Sec. 1915.503, OSHA proposes that the
employer be allowed to authorize employees to do hot work only in areas
that have been visually inspected and found to be free of fire hazards
or in inspected areas where fire hazards are controlled by physical
isolation, fire watches, or other positive means such as inerting.
In developing the proposed language above, the Committee discussed
under what circumstances the employer may authorize hot work on board
vessels and vessel sections. Everyone on the Committee agreed that
decisions about authorizing hot work on board vessels and vessel
sections must be based on the inspection. When the inspection shows
that there are no uncontrolled combustible or flammable materials in
the area, then authorization for hot work is appropriate. The Committee
also recognized that most of the mid-to large-size yards pre-outfit
ship sections with electrical cables and fixtures, insulation, and
other combustible materials requiring the employer to decide for each
section what type of fire protection should be provided when hot work
is to be done.
The likelihood of the hot work areas containing combustible
materials during ship repair is greater than in shipbuilding. During
ship repair, as in other work the employer must control the fire
hazards prior to authorizing the hot work. Control, as required in
paragraph (a)(2)(ii), can be by physical isolation, posting fire
watches, or other positive means. For example, an employer can achieve
physical isolation of combustibles by simply moving them to an area at
least 35 feet away from the hot work (see definition of ``physical
isolation''). The Committee discussed the 35-foot vertical and
horizontal distance and found it to be consistent with current industry
practice. Where combustibles can not be moved or otherwise physically
isolated, the employer can post a fire watch to control the fire
hazard. Additionally, when flammable atmospheres are found adjacent to
the hot work area, the employer can control the fire hazard by inerting
the adjacent space with a non-reactive substance that will not support
combustion. For further information on controlling spaces (flammable
atmospheres) adjacent to where hot work is being performed, see subpart
B of this part.
Members of the public and shipyard representatives on the Committee
commented during negotiations that the individual performing the hot
work is usually expected to conduct his or her own final visual survey
of the hot work area to make sure that conditions are safe for hot
work. This is a common practice whether identified on a written permit
or as part of the verbal authorization/assignment to the work. If the
survey discovers unsafe conditions (e.g., appreciable combustibles in
an area, leaking lines of combustible liquids--hydraulic fluid, oil),
then the worker will not initiate the work and will contact the
individual authorizing the work for further instruction. It is also
expected that work would not start until the situation was corrected.
As explained by a Committee member, the employer is ultimately
responsible for making sure that areas are inspected before hot work
and that safe conditions are maintained throughout the hot work area.
This may be done by requiring frequent inspection, training, or warning
signs even when the employer has delegated the responsibilities for the
inspections. OSHA has not proposed to require the hot worker to conduct
a survey as the Agency believes the employer has the responsibility for
determining if the area is safe. An employer may, of course, have such
a survey as part of his or her work practices.
While subpart B has a requirement that a record be prepared by the
Marine Chemist, Coast Guard Authorized Person, or Shipyard Competent
Person allowing the hot work to be authorized as defined by Sec.
1915.14, not all hot work areas need to be certified by a Marine
Chemist or inspected by a Coast Guard Authorized Person or Shipyard
Competent Person before the employer's authorization for hot work to
begin. The employer may assign the authorization responsibility to
other individuals who are knowledgeable in the hazards associated with
hot work.
In paragraph (b) of Sec. 1915.503, OSHA is proposing that the
employer keep all hot work areas free of hazards that may cause or
contribute to the spread of fire. This proposed paragraph summarizes
the Committee's belief that fires cannot occur if the hazards
contributing to them are controlled. This requirement is to prevent the
introduction of combustible or flammable materials during the
performance of hot work. Often, safe conditions exist at the start of
the hot work process; however, over the duration of the work, these
materials may be brought to the site thereby creating a fire hazard.
For example, one worker may be performing hot work at the same time
another worker from another job introduces combustible or flammable
materials within 35 feet of the hot work operation. The worker's safety
can be further compromised by the fact that the worker doing the hot
work is wearing a face shield that obstructs vision, preventing that
worker from seeing the entrance of the second worker. It is the intent
of this requirement that hazard assessment be a continual process and
not a singular, one-time event. Therefore any measures
[[Page 76225]]
used by the employer to control fire hazards must be maintained.
Fuel gas and oxygen burning lines and torches are typically used in
shipyard employment as follows. A burner (an employee engaged in
burning or brazing) is trained and becomes qualified in the safe
operation and testing of his equipment; namely the burning torch,
gauges, care and use of the fuel gas and oxygen hose lines and proper
connection to the supply manifold. Only qualified employees are issued
this equipment from the tool room. After being issued his equipment, a
burner working on a vessel will proceed to the manifold on the fantail
of the vessel. Assigned to work in the lower level of the machinery
space (enclosed space) 200 feet from the manifold, he will connect four
50 foot sections of hose together and to his torch. Next, he will
connect this assembly to the gauges that he, in turn, attaches to the
supply manifold. He then charges the entire burning rig by opening the
oxygen and fuel supply lines. He then tests the torch and lines for
compression integrity using his gauges first having turned off the
supply valves. If the gauges indicate compromised integrity, the burner
will then re-tighten all of the connections and test again. Once the
integrity of the burning rig is established, he then proceeds to roll
out the lines on the deck to his assigned worksite. Upon reaching his
worksite, he then returns to the supply manifold, energizes the system,
and proceeds to secure his hose lines elevated and out of walkways to
eliminate tripping hazards. Finally, he returns to his worksite and
begins burning.
In paragraph (b)(2)(i) OSHA proposes that the employer must make
sure that no unattended fuel gas and oxygen hose lines or torches are
left in confined spaces. The proposed language in this paragraph has
been adapted from 29 CFR 1910.252; Sec. 1915.52; and NFPA 312-2000,
Standard for Protection of Vessels During Construction, Repair, and
Lay-up (Ex. 20-4). The Committee and participants from the public
attending the Committee's meetings agreed with the proposed requirement
in paragraph (b)(2)(i). This requirement reflects the current practice
in the industry.
The potential danger associated with unattended fuel gas and oxygen
hoses or torches in confined spaces is apparent and universally
accepted. Leaking fuel gas and oxygen from unattended hoses or torches
can accumulate rapidly in confined spaces leading to several hazardous
conditions such as increased fire hazards, oxygen-enriched atmospheres,
explosive atmospheres, and similar conditions. This proposed paragraph
seeks to eliminate the hazards associated with unattended fuel gas and
oxygen hoses or torches in confined spaces.
In paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of Sec. 1915.503, OSHA is proposing that
employers must not allow unattended charged fuel gas and oxygen hose
lines or torches in enclosed spaces for more than 15 minutes. The
proposed language in this paragraph has also been adapted from 29 CFR
1910.252; Sec. 1915.52; and NFPA 312-2000, Standard for Protection of
Vessels During Construction, Repair, and Lay-up (Ex. 20-4). The
Committee agreed with this proposed requirement following extensive
discussion and analysis. They felt that the potential for fire or
explosion caused by unattended charged lines in enclosed spaces far
outweighs the burden of pulling to open air or disconnecting.
In paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of Sec. 1915.503, OSHA is proposing that
the employer must disconnect all fuel gas and oxygen hoses at the
supply manifold at the end of each shift. The fact that paragraph
(b)(2)(iii) does not propose a hose removal requirement needs to be
further discussed in rulemaking. The Agency seeks comment on this
subject. Some shipyard employers indicated that at shift change fuel
gas and oxygen hoses are rolled back to the manifold and disconnected
at the supply end, while other shipyard employers found this to be
impractical. They noted that at a large shipyard work can be done on a
vessel as long as 800 feet with as many as seven decks. For this work,
employees need to connect burning rigs on the fantail supply manifold
and string 700 feet of fuel gas and oxygen hose lines through a number
of enclosed spaces to reach a worksite. Adding more lines to this
supply manifold with additional manifolds also located on the fantail
creates the problem of unstringing and rolling back literally miles of
hose lines to disconnect them. The potential for confusion exists when
these lines are disconnected and then need to be reconnected. The
Committee agreed that the hoses should be removed from the confined
spaces, but there remained a question about whether this was necessary
for enclosed spaces.
The concern is not necessarily about leaking hoses and their
potential for creating a hazardous space. Rather, the bigger concern
seems to be with the possibility of hooking up, at the supply manifold,
a different (wrong) hose whose torch end was left hanging in an
enclosed space. Because it is the wrong hose, it may now be dispensing
gas (oxygen and fuel gas) into an space without anyone knowing, a space
that is not involved in the intended work. The contaminated space may
not be discovered until much later, thus creating a fire/explosion
hazard. Additionally, leaking fuel gas and oxygen may create a
flammable or oxygen-enriched atmosphere that may reach an ignition
source.
OSHA deals with these hazards in proposed paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(A)
and (B) of Sec. 1915.503. When fuel gas and oxygen lines are to be
disconnected, the employer has two options. One is to completely roll
the lines back to the supply manifold (open air) and then disconnect
the torch. The other is, where a positive means of identification on
the fuel gas and oxygen hose lines has been given before rolling out or
extending the line, the employee can leave the lines extended,
disconnect them at the supply manifold, and then disconnect the torch.
This would assure that, not only would the proper extended lines be
disconnected, but also that the proper lines will be reconnected, thus
eliminating the hazards discussed above. Also, because the torch must
be removed from the enclosed space after disconnecting the extended
line from the supply manifold, the potential for the build-up of a
hazardous atmosphere is greatly reduced.
Selecting the positive means of identification for the fuel gas and
oxygen hose lines is left, by this performance type requirement, to the
discretion of the employer. Examples of the positive means of
identification include stenciling both ends of the line, color coding,
stamped brass tags, and so forth. It is clear however, that the lines
must be identified at both ends regardless of how many sections are
joined, creating the run.
The Committee felt that extended lines could be reconnected safely
provided that certain measures were followed: positively identifying
hose line ends and maintaining the integrity of the complete burning
rig. The former has already been discussed. The Committee recognized
that maintaining the integrity of the burning rig can be accomplished
in a number of ways. The preferred way is the drop test using gauges
which has already been discussed. Another way is the use of a lockout
device (Ex. 16b). Still another is testing a pressurized system, using
soapy water at all connections. The Committee concluded--and OSHA
agrees-- that using such performance language as an alternative to
specifications will help to nurture developing technology in these
areas.
[[Page 76226]]
Section 1915.504 Fire Watches
The requirements of this section, as recommended by the Committee,
apply to fire watch activity designated by the employer in shipyard
employment. The requirements are proposed in three parts: (a) the
employer's written policy on fire watches, (b) the posting of a fire
watch, and (c) fire watch assignments.
The existing subpart in Sec. 1915.52 Fire Prevention in Welding,
Cutting and Heating is a 35-year-old standard. It was identified by
SESAC in 1992 as needing updating and extension of its scope to cover
all the situations in shipyard employment regardless of geographic
location. The Committee has recommended, and OSHA agrees, that the
existing requirements in Sec. 1915 that address fire protection be
replaced by the proposed requirements of this subpart.
Paragraph (a) of Sec. 1915.504 requires employers to create and
keep current a written policy on fire watches specifying the
requirements for the training, duties, equipment, and PPE necessary for
fire watches in the workplace. The PPE that fire watches will need is
specified in to 29 CFR subpart I Personal Protective Equipment. No
specific format is proposed for the written policy. The Committee
determined the employer was in the best position to determine how the
requirement can be met, and OSHA agreed. OSHA recognizes that the
employer needs the discretion to tailor the plan to his or her
workplace.
Paragraph (b) of Sec. 1915.504 proposes that the employer must
determine the need for and post a fire watch if during hot work: (1)
Slag, weld splatter, or sparks might pass through an opening and cause
a fire; (2) fire-resistant guards or curtains are not used to prevent
ignition of combustible materials during work on or near decks,
bulkheads, partitions, or overheads; (3) combustible material closer
than 35 ft. (10.7m) horizontally and vertically cannot be removed,
protected with flame-proof covers, or otherwise shielded with metal or
fire-resistant guards or curtains, so that the material will not be
ignited by the hot work; (4) on or near insulation, combustible
coatings, or sandwich-type construction on either side cannot be
shielded, cut back, or the materials removed. In the latter case, if
removal is impracticable, the space affected by the hot work must be
inerted; if that cannot be done, then a fire watch must be posted. A
fire watch must also be posted when: (5) Combustible materials adjacent
to the opposite sides of bulkheads, decks, overheads, metal partitions,
or of sandwich-type construction may be ignited by heat conduction or
radiation; (6) hot work on pipes or other metal is close enough to
cause ignition through heat radiation or conduction if contact is made
with insulation, combustible coatings, or combustible decks, bulkheads,
partitions, or overheads; (7) hot work is close enough to unprotected
combustible pipe or cable runs to cause ignition from exposure to the
hot work; or (8) a watch is required by a Marine Chemist, a Coast Guard
authorized person, or a shipyard Competent Person. The Committee
identified these eight probable cases where a fire watch is needed for
any size shipyard employment. OSHA's proposed requirements for this
paragraph are based on their recommendations.
Paragraph (b)(1) of Sec. 1915.504 proposes controlling ignition
sources for work processes that generate slag, weld splatter, or sparks
that might pass through an opening and cause a fire. It has been
adapted from NFPA 51B-1999, Standard for Fire Prevention in Use of
Cutting and Welding Processes (Ex. 19-3) and 1910.252(a)(2)(iii)(A)(3).
During the meetings, the Committee discussed the size of the openings.
The Committee considered whether the size needs to be specified. The
provision's intent as proposed is to leave the requirement performance
oriented. If a spark can get through an opening and cause a fire, then
the area should be protected. The Committee preferred to not be
specific, but to leave it to the employer to determine which openings
need to be protected.
Paragraph (b)(2) of Sec. 1915.504 proposes to recognize that
ignition sources can be controlled through the use of fire-resistant
guards or curtains. Where the combustible materials cannot be protected
from a possible ignition source, the employer must post a fire watch.
The Committee recognized that combustible materials can be protected
through the use of fire-resistant guards or curtains. For example, a
sandwich-type bulkhead could be safely protected from ignition of the
combustible materials during hot work by using a fire-resistant guard
or curtain.
Paragraph (b)(3) of Sec. 1915.504 reflects the 35 ft. requirement
(minimum distance of combustible materials from hot work) from the
1910.252(a)(2)(vii), subpart Q Welding, Cutting and Brazing and NFPA
51B-1999, Standard for Fire Prevention in Use of Cutting and Welding
Processes (Ex. 19-3). In this paragraph OSHA proposes to require that
an employer post a fire watch unless combustible materials are
relocated to at least 35 feet beyond the hot work area or are protected
by shielding. The Committee discussed the 35-foot distance at length
during the course of the meetings and agreed that if the possibility
exists that hot work materials could make contact with the combustible
material in any way, a fire watch must be posted. No specific reasons
or evidence to change the distance was suggested by any of the members
or representatives from the public. The Committee's proposal kept the
35-foot distance. The Committee believes that the distance has been in
regulatory requirements and national consensus standards for many years
and reflects the current industry practice. The Agency concurs that
such protection is reasonable and necessary.
Paragraph (b)(4) of Sec. 1915.504 addresses the hazards associated
with combustible coatings, sandwich-type construction, or other
insulating materials. Besides shielding, cutting back, removing the
materials and posting a fire watch, an industry practice for the
acoustic foams that are commonly found in inaccessible voids is to
inert the areas to make them safe for hot work. Industry practice, in
these situation, has been to also provide charged fire hoses or
portable extinguishers as fire protection measures for fire watches.
Polyurethane and other organic foams are increasingly used on vessels
because of their excellent insulating and lightweight properties. When
properly installed and protected against fire, organic foams present no
more fire hazard than other combustible materials. However, when
organic foams (including those described as self-extinguishing, non-
burning, fire resistant, flame resistant, and by similar terms) are
exposed to fire or heat, they may ignite and burn with rapid flame
spread, high temperatures, toxic gases, and voluminous quantities of
smoke.
Paragraph (b)(5) of Sec. 1915.504 addresses the potential hazards
of adjacent spaces. This paragraph is adapted from Sec. 1915.52(a)(3).
It is an important part of the hazard assessment ``since direct
penetration of sparks or heat transfer may introduce a fire hazard to
an adjacent compartment, the same precautions shall be taken on the
opposite side as are taken on the side on which the welding is
performed.'' During hot work on or near insulation, combustible
coatings, or sandwich-type construction on either side, if the employer
cannot cut back or remove the materials or inert the space, a fire
watch must also be posted on the opposite side of the hot work. This
requirement is intended to address the increased fire hazard potential
(noted in the explanation above for paragraph (b)(4))
[[Page 76227]]
that results from hot work conducted in areas with or adjacent to
polyurethane or other organic foams.
In cases where hot material from hot work could involve more than
one level, as in trunks and machinery spaces, a fire watch must be
stationed at each affected level unless positive means are available to
prevent the spread or fall of hot material. Positive means could be
accomplished by placing barriers or by physically isolating an area.
The same is true for adjacent spaces; a fire watch must be stationed at
each affected work area.
Paragraph (b)(6) of Sec. 1915.504 requires a fire watch during hot
work when performed on pipes or other metal in contact with insulation,
combustible coatings or combustible materials on or near decks,
bulkheads, partitions, or overheads if the work is close enough to
cause ignition by radiation or conduction. The fire watch workgroup
discussed at length the term ``bulkhead and deck.'' Because the scope
of subpart P is for shipyard employment, the subgroup discussed the
fact that bulkheads and decks refer to vessels and vessel sections and
although these terms could be used for structures and buildings, that
is not the norm. Normally on landside structures the terms ``walls and
floors'' are commonly used. Would use of ``bulkhead and deck'' in this
provision cause confusion as to the applicability throughout shipyard
employment, both on land side and aboard vessels? The Agency invites
comment on this issue.
Paragraph (b)(7) of Sec. 1915.504 requires a fire watch if hot
work is conducted close enough to combustible pipe or cable runs to
cause ignition (unless the pipe or cable runs are protected from
exposure to the hot work). This provision takes into account the large
amount of cable runs through vessel compartments. Although these cables
must be tested to low flame spread and smoke production rates, they are
still combustible and have been responsible for the spread of fire in
many cases. Also, the use of combustible piping is increasing, and
although required to meet strict flame spread and smoke production
criteria, the potential for fire spread through pipe runs is the same
as through cable runs and should therefore be safeguarded.
Paragraph (b)(8) of Sec. 1915.504 proposes to add a provision for
posting a fire watch when required by a Marine Chemist, a Coast Guard
authorized person, or a shipyard Competent Person. These individuals
are trained to know when a fire hazard requiring a fire watch exists
even in circumstances not set forth in paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(7)
above. In one of the areas of biggest concern-where flammable and
combustible liquids are present, for example, in vessel construction--
the regulations already require a competent individual to determine
where a fire watch will be required. An employer is already required to
designate a shipyard Competent Person in accordance with applicable
requirements of 29 CFR 1915.7. These requirements, coupled with the
time-tested recommendations of NFPA 51B-1999 and 29 CFR 1915 subpart B,
were considered adequate by the Committee.
Paragraph (c) of Sec. 1915.504 outlines the assignment of fire
watch duty. Originally, the Committee's Fire Watch Workgroup had
recommended language for this paragraph that specifically states that
the employer is responsible for a worker's assignment to fire watch
duty. However, the Committee felt that this should be understood
throughout the regulations that the employer is ultimately responsible
for workplace fire safety, and thus it does not need to be repeated.
OSHA agrees.
Paragraph (c)(1) of Sec. 1915.504 states that an employee must not
be assigned other duties when designated as fire watch by the employer.
The Committee wanted to be very clear on this requirement, because
although fire watch as an exclusive assignment is recognized as
industry practice, the fire watch posting is crucial to maintaining
safe working areas. For example, welders with their shields down rely
totally on the fire watch's observations. This watch should not be
distracted by having other duties assigned at the same time.
The provision in paragraph (c)(2)(i) requires that a fire watch
must have a clear view of all areas assigned. This requirement
effectively precludes a worker acting as his or her own fire watch. The
workgroup told the Committee that if hot work workers, i.e., welders
and burners, were, in fact, acting as their own fire watch, the
requirement for a clear view of those areas affected could not be met.
They noted that when a welder's shield is down, the immediate area
where the arc hits is the only area the welder is concentrating on, and
the welder is oblivious to the surrounding work area affected. The
Committee agreed and wanted to note specially that a worker performing
hot work, such as a welder, cannot be his or her own fire watch under
any circumstances.
The Committee was concerned that a fire watch be able to do his or
her job. This means that a fire watch must be physically capable of
accessing the necessary area and wearing the appropriate PPE. For
example, a fire watch may have to climb ladders to access tanks or
other structures, carry fire extinguishers, pull hoses, see the
assigned area, pull alarm stations, and communicate the alarm verbally.
Although there was much discussion, the Committee did not include a
requirement stating that the employer must make sure that personnel who
are expected to stand fire watch will perform and are capable of
carrying out the duties of fire watch. The logic, after discussions,
was that the employer would be the best judge of physical capability
and mental alertness of the fire watch.
Paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of Sec. 1915.504 proposes that employees
assigned to fire watch duty must be able to communicate with workers
exposed to hot work. As addressed later in the preamble for paragraph
(c)(2)(x) of Sec. 1915.508 Training, there was considerable discussion
within the workgroup about current industry practices for the fire
watch's contact with other workers. The Committee decided that
communication is important because a fire watch may not be able to see
a hot worker when, for example, the fire watch is on the other side of
a compartment from the hot worker. The Committee did not want to limit
the means of communication. For example, in the case of a fire watch on
the other side of the bulkhead from the employee doing hot work, the
means may be as simple as tapping on the bulkhead to signal whether the
hot worker can continue or must stop, or it could be a more electronic
communication system such as radio communication.
Paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of Sec. 1915.504 specifies that the fire
watch must remain in the hot work area at least 30 minutes after hot
work is completed. A provision has been added that permits the fire
watch to be relieved sooner if the employer or the employer's
representative surveys the exposed areas, conducts a post-work hazard
assessment, and determines that no further fire hazard exists.
Obviously, this determination can only be made after a hazard
assessment is completed. The fire watch workgroup carried forth this
requirement from SESAC's recommendation that the NFPA and industry-
accepted practice be used as the rationale for the 30 minute
requirement unless the employer surveys the affected work area(s) and
determines that there is no further fire hazard. The workgroup
recommended to the Committee that when the work area was protected
before the hot work was done, the employer or the
[[Page 76228]]
employer's representative could resurvey the affected area and
determine the area was safe from fire hazards without the need for a
fire watch for 30 minutes after completion of the hot work. The
Committee agreed. The intent of this provision is to encourage
employers or their representative to use the hazard assessment process
throughout the work--beginning, middle (to see if conditions change),
and at the end (to determine how long the fire watch may be needed).
OSHA invites comment on whether the fire watch remaining in the hot
work area for at least 30 minutes after completion of the hot work is
the equivalent to the employer's immediate survey of the exposed area
to making a determination that there is no further fire hazard.
Paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of Sec. 1915.504 proposes that the employer
must ensure that employees assigned to fire watch duty are trained to
detect fires that occur in areas exposed to the hot work. (For a
further explanation, see the Training section at Sec. 1915.508.)
Paragraph (c)(2)(v) of Sec. 1915.504 requires that the fire watch
must attempt to extinguish any incipient stage fires in the assigned
work area that are within the available equipment's capacity and within
the fire watch's training qualifications as defined in 1915.508
Training. The term ``incipient stage fire'' is defined in the General
Industry Fire Protection Standard Sec. 1910.155(c)(26): Incipient
stage fire means a fire which is in the initial or beginning stage and
which can be controlled or extinguished by portable fire extinguishers,
class II standpipe or small hose systems without the need for
protective clothing or breathing apparatus. Although the maritime
industry asked for a single standard, this definition is an example
where the general industry standard is referenced to reduce regulatory
duplication. OSHA seeks comment on whether the definition needs to be
included in this standard.
Paragraph (c)(2)(vi) of Sec. 1915.504 proposes the requirement
that the fire watch alert employees of any fire that goes beyond the
incipient stage. The method the fire watch uses to alert other
employees is not specified. The fire watch can alert in the way most
suited to the worksite and conditions. Whether this is accomplished by
shouting, waving of arms, or hand signals is left up to the employer to
instruct the fire watch. In a noisy working environment, it might be
most appropriate to tap hot workers on the shoulder and then motion to
them to follow or exit the area. In a smokey situation, vocal
communication would be more appropriate.
Paragraph (c)(2)(vii) of Sec. 1915.504 provides that if fire
watches are unable to extinguish fire in the areas exposed to the hot
work, they must activate the alarm and start the evacuation procedure
as trained according to Sec. 1915.508(c)(2)(xi) and the employer's
fire safety plan, Sec. 1915.502.
Section 1915.505 Fire Response
In this section OSHA proposes specific requirements for fire
response in shipyard employment. At present, OSHA does not have any
specific requirements for fire response in shipyard employment.
Responders to shipyard fires encounter a complex set of fire
hazards involving buildings, vessels in dry-dock or on ways, afloat, or
alongside a quay. Fire responders need to be prepared to suppress a
wide range of fire scenarios from a flammable liquid storage room in a
shipyard building to oil-soaked rags in an engine room on a ship. Types
of fires could include ordinary combustible materials (such as wood,
paper or cloth), flammable or combustible liquids (such as oil, fuels,
paints or chemicals), insulation and other materials that give off
toxic gases and smoke, electrical fires (involving energized motors,
circuit controls, transformers or wiring) or even a rare combustible
metal fire (such as magnesium or titanium).
Shipyard firefighting as defined in section 1915.509 Definitions
may be provided by:
1. Members of a fire brigade established by the shipyard,
consisting of employees who have primary duties other than
firefighting;
2. Workers of the shipyard employed as full-time firefighters; or
3. Public, private, governmental, or military units providing
rescue, firefighting, and other related services.
As expressed by one Committee member, when firefighters respond to
a shipyard fire, the safety of the shipyard workers rests with those
firefighters; therefore, that member noted, the safety of all
firefighters should be addressed by this standard and these rules
should apply to them as well. In fact, the Committee expressed concern
that whoever provides fire response to shipyard employment must meet
certain minimum standards. The Committee's consensus was that
designated workers (whether employed by the shipyard or by another
employer) must be trained and equipped to fight fires in shipyard
employment as safely as possible to reduce worker deaths or injuries
related to these fires.
To ensure that this happens when firefighters are not shipyard
workers, the Committee decided to require a liaison be established
between the shipyard employer and the outside organization providing
response services. Consistent with the recommendations of the
Committee, OSHA is proposing that the shipyard liaison's communication
with an outside fire response organization must include addressing
facility and layout familiarization and coordination protocols. Public
fire departments in those states with approved section 18b State Plans
that respond to shipyard facilities will be covered by similar
requirements through their respective states. Federal OSHA does not
have jurisdiction over state and municipal fire departments or
volunteers. Federal firefighters are covered under Executive Order No.
12291. OSHA believes that the safety of all firefighters is a major
concern and intends the broadest coverage possible under the Act
regardless of the shipyard employer's fire response arrangements. The
Committee was in full agreement that anyone responding to a shipyard
employment fire to actually extinguish a fire should be covered by this
proposed rule to the extent possible. The proposed coverage of this
standard, for fire responders has to exclude state and municipal fire
departments and volunteers even though they will benefit from the
requirement to establish a liaison with them.
Shipyard fire responders do not include support personnel
responding at or near fires who have only limited support functions to
perform. The Committee agreed that the shipyard employment workers who
might respond to provide support services but are not exposed to the
hazards of the fire, should not be covered. Such support services
include electricians, utility workers, and facility management
representatives. As explained by one Committee member, the requirements
of this proposal are not intended to apply to employees responding to a
shipyard employment fire to open or close valves, turn off electric
service, or disconnect gas supplies. ``Support personnel,'' as the
Committee called them, are designated persons not put into harm's way
but performing such tasks as shutting down or isolating gas lines and
disconnecting electrical service. They are not fire response personnel
since they are not exposed to the hazards of firefighting. Members of
the public, including Vincent Galattli from Bender Shipbuilding and
Michael Davis from Halter Marine, noted that some shipyard
[[Page 76229]]
employment workers join community fire departments as volunteers. These
volunteers are sometimes used in shipyard employment to pull hoses but
do not fight fires. Committee member Buck Hurley from the Norfolk Naval
Shipyard noted that crane operators could be used to provide supplies,
water, or chemicals, but not perform actual firefighting.
This proposed section consolidates the requirements of 29 CFR
1910.156 Fire Brigades with some of the provisions in NFPA 1500-2002,
Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health Program (Ex. 20-5),
creating a standard that specifically addressees shipyard fire
response.
A Committee workgroup consisting of representatives of the fire
service, government, labor, and employers developed the initial
proposed language for this section. In addition to using the SESAC
recommended proposal and current industry practice, the workgroup
relied heavily on NFPA 1500-2002. The workgroup also discussed and
reviewed NFPA 600-2000, Standard on Industrial Fire Brigades (Ex. 20-
6).
NFPA completely revised NFPA 600 in 2000 to be consistent with
OSHA's Fire Brigade Standard. In 2000, NFPA further revised the
document to include industrial fire departments that were previously
covered in NFPA 1500.
The workgroup chose to rely more heavily on NFPA 1500-2002 rather
than NFPA 600-2000 because of the need to make sure that response from
outside the yard would be compatible with response from inside the
yard. In many communities, particularly where there are small
employers, the shipyard must rely on and coordinate fire response with
the local fire authority. Through this section, OSHA intends to assure
the coordination between the yard and the outside fire response
organization so that they can work together safely.
There is one general distinction that OSHA wants to make clear with
respect to fire response in shipyard employment. As recommended to OSHA
by the Committee, shipyard support personnel are not considered members
of the shipyard fire brigade or fire department when they respond to
fires on board vessels or vessel sections. The Committee agreed that
additional shipyard personnel, usually yard maintenance or temporary
service employees, can and do react to fire alarms on board vessels and
vessel sections. However, when these employees respond to the fire
location, they do so with the understanding that they will not put
themselves at risk by attempting to fight fires. Rather, their only
responsibility is to offer skilled support to fire brigade or fire
department responders by securing certain utilities (i.e., electrical,
ventilation, compressed air, and oxy-fuel lines suppling the vessel or
vessel section) when necessary during fire suppression activities.
Because they have detailed knowledge of the vessel's or vessel
section's layout of temporary services and the locations within the
yard for controlling these services, they can also serve as an
information resource for firefighters responding to the fire.
For example: A large cargo ship is tied up at a pier. Manifolds
provide fuel gas and oxygen for hot work located on the main deck of
the vessel. The manifolds are fed from the pier. A fire is discovered
below decks and the fire alarm sounds throughout the vessel. The
employees leave their work stations and proceed off the vessel to a
waiting area. The yard's fire brigade arrives and boards the vessel.
The outside or municipal fire department is alerted and initiates its
response plan. As part of the yard's fire safety plan, the temporary
service and yard maintenance departments respond to the pier alongside
the vessel. Representatives of the yard's fire brigade meet with the
temporary service employees and they communicate with the firefighters
on board the vessel to identify the location of the fire. Based upon
the information received from the firefighters on board the vessel, the
temporary service employees will begin to secure utilities that provide
service to the fire area. Once the utilities have been secured to
prevent hazards to the firefighters, the temporary service employees
will return to the staging area and await further requests from the
yard's fire brigade.
In this scenario, the temporary service employees did not enter the
vessel's compartments with the intent to fight the fire. They responded
to give skilled, technical support to the responding fire departments.
OSHA wants to make it clear that in shipyard employment, the shipyard
support personnel, such as temporary service employees, are not
considered part of the shipyard's fire brigade or fire response
department. Shipyard fire response department or brigade employees who
participate in the actual role of fire suppression and control are the
only employees covered by this section. These employees must be trained
for the duties and functions they are expected to perform. The shipyard
employees who are not part of the shipyard's fire brigade or fire
department, including skilled support employees, are not covered by
this section. Their protection is provided by other standards in this
part.
In paragraph (a)(1) of Sec. 1915.505, the shipyard employer is
required to determine who will perform fire response in the shipyard
and what type of response will be provided. The Committee recommended
this approach based on the diverse fire response capabilities it found
throughout the industry. Some shipyard employers, those with very large
facilities, employ full-time shipyard firefighters and provide them
with response apparatus and equipment. At the other end of the spectrum
are the employers at small shipyards who must rely totally on public
fire protection. One Committee member indicated that his shipyard fire
response personnel constitute the superior fire protection expertise in
his community. This is with regard not only to shipyard fires but also
to the fire response operations of the local public fire department to
which he offers support and back-up. Yet, at another meeting, a public
fire official indicated his department provides all of the fire
protection for the shipyards located in his district. The Committee
consensus is that the deciding factors are so many and so varied that
each shipyard employer must take responsibility for determining who
will provide fire response services and what those services will be.
OSHA proposes in paragraph (a)(2) of Sec. 1915.505 that the
employer must create and maintain an updated written statement or
policy that describes the internal and outside fire response
organizations that the employer will use. In complete agreement with
the Committee, OSHA is promoting the idea of pre-planning throughout
this proposed fire response section.
Paragraph (a)(3) of Sec. 1915.505 proposes that the employer
create, maintain, and update a written statement or policy that defines
what evacuation procedures employees must follow if the employer
chooses to require a total or partial evacuation of the worksite at the
time of a fire.
The Committee stated strongly that once the shipyard employer
decides how to protect employees from the hazards of fire, the methods
of protection must be pre-planned and documented regardless of the type
of response the employer chooses. Accordingly, in paragraph (b) of
Sec. 1915.505, OSHA proposes the information that must be included in
the written policy statement required by this section. These written
policy statements should set forth the basis for operating a fire
response service. A key point is to set out clearly the specific
[[Page 76230]]
functions the fire response service is authorized and expected to
perform. Employers must assert their authority to set the specific
functions and the limits of the functions the fire response service
will provide. The employer also must furnish the necessary resources
for delivering the designated services. Such services might include
structural fire response, emergency medical services, hazardous
materials response, high-angle rescue, heavy rescue, and others.
OSHA proposes in paragraph (b)(1) of Sec. 1915.505 that, if the
employer chooses to provide internal fire response, then the employer
must create, maintain, and update a written statement or policy that
defines the fire response to be provided. The information would include
the organizational structure of the fire response service; the number
of trained fire response employees; the minimum number of fire response
employees necessary, the number and types of apparatus, and a
description of the fire suppression operations established by written
standard operating procedures for each type of fire response at the
employer's facility; training requirements; expected functions that may
need to be carried out; and procedures for use of protective clothing
and equipment. Spelling out the specific parameters of services to be
provided allows the fire response service to plan, staff, equip, train,
and deploy members to perform these duties.
Similarly, OSHA proposes in paragraph (b)(2) of Sec. 1915.505 that
if the employer chooses to use an outside fire response organization,
then the employer must include specific information in the employer's
policy statement. The policy statement should include the following:
(1) The types of fire suppression incidents to which the fire response
organization is expected to respond at the employer's facility or
worksite; (2) the liaison which would presumably be by individual name
or job title, between the employer and the outside fire response
organization; (3) a plan for fire response functions that discusses
using or getting help from other organizations, and familiarizes the
external fire response organization with the layout of the employer's
facility or worksite, including access routes to controlled areas, and
site-specific operations, occupancies, vessels or vessel sections, and
hazards; and how hose and coupling connection threads are to be made
compatible and where the adapter couplings are kept; or have a
statement saying that they will not allow the use of incompatible hose
connections.
OSHA further proposes in paragraph (b)(3) of Sec. 1915.505 that if
the employer chooses to use a combination of an internal and an outside
fire response organization, then the employer must define the fire
response services in addition to the requirements in (b)(1) and (2)
above, that will be provided by each fire response organization.
Specifically, the following information must be included: The basic
organizational structure of the combined fire response; the number of
combined trained fire responders; the fire response functions that need
to be carried out; the minimum number of fire response employees
necessary, the number and types of apparatus, and a description of the
fire suppression operations established by written standard operating
procedures for each particular type of fire response at the worksite;
and the type, amount, and frequency of joint training that must be
given to fire response employees.
As an alternative to providing active fire response, the Committee
recognized in paragraph (b)(4) of Sec. 1915.505, OSHA's longstanding
policy that employers may also ensure employee safety in case of fire
through the means of evacuation. Accordingly, paragraph (b)(4) of Sec.
1915.505 would require that the employer's evacuation policy statement
include the following: Emergency escape procedures; procedures to be
followed by employees who may remain longer in the worksite to perform
critical shipyard operations before they evacuate; procedures to
account for all employees after emergency evacuation is completed; the
preferred means of reporting fires and other emergencies; and names or
job titles of the employees or departments who may be contacted for
further information or explanation of duties. These requirements are
based on similar requirements found in employee emergency plans and
fire prevention plans (29 CFR 1910.38).
Emergency escape procedures in shipyard employment can vary greatly
depending upon whether the worksite is located on a vessel or vessel
section or in a landside facility. For example, on a vessel at
anchorage, escape routes from the vessel may be more difficult to
identify than those found in a landside machine shop, carpenter's shop,
welding shop, cafeteria, employment office, or similar worksite. This
paragraph also requires procedures to protect employees who must remain
behind to perform critical shipyard operations before they evacuate.
Critical shipyard operations may include shutting down a vessel's power
plant, securing utilities to the fire area, or similar activities.
Additionally, accountability procedures for all employees following
emergency evacuation must be established. For example, employees could
be directed to report to a specific location after evacuation. Another
important element of the evacuation policy is the preferred means of
reporting fires or other emergencies. Examples include telephone or
radio communications, fire alarms, steam whistles, verbal
communication, or other tactile, visual, or audible means of
communication at the employer's discretion. Finally, as a means to
administer the evacuation policy effectively, the statement must
indicate the key individuals by name, job title, or department to be
contacted for further information or explanation of duties under the
policy.
In paragraph (b)(5) OSHA is proposing a requirement that the
employer must include a description of the emergency rescue procedures
and names or job titles of the employees who are assigned to perform
rescue and emergency response. The Committee recommended this
requirement and OSHA agrees.
In paragraph (c) of Sec. 1915.505, OSHA, following the
recommendation of the Committee, proposes the physical and medical
qualifications shipyard employees must meet to be a part of the fire
response. In paragraph (c)(1) of Sec. 1915.505, OSHA requires that all
fire response employees receive medical examinations to assure that
they are physically and medically fit for the duties they are expected
to perform. This approach is consistent with NFPA 600-2000, NFPA 1500-
2002, and other OSHA standards, such as in 29 CFR 1910.156 and 29 CFR
1910.120. OSHA recognizes that firefighting is one of the most
hazardous occupations and that those who perform fire response
activities must be able to perform them properly without jeopardizing
the safety and health of themselves and other firefighters. Of
particular concern to OSHA are such conditions as emphysema, heart
disease, and epilepsy. While these conditions do not preclude
participation in fire response, they may preclude participation in
certain fire response activities. For that reason, OSHA proposes to
require the employee's physical and mental fitness be in accord with
the duties the employee will perform.
In paragraph (c)(2) of Sec. 1915.505, OSHA is proposing that fire
response employees who are required to wear respirators while
performing their duties must meet the medical requirements of 29 CFR
1915.154 Respiratory protection. This
[[Page 76231]]
requirement is consistent with the language of 29 CFR 1910.134 (c)(1)
that requires employers whose employees use respirators to develop and
implement a respiratory protection program. One of the elements of a
respiratory protection program is implementing medical evaluation for
employees who use respirators. Paragraphs (g)(3) and (g)(4) of 29 CFR
1910.134 require firefighters who perform interior structural
firefighting or who enter atmospheres that are immediately dangerous to
life and health ( IDLH atmospheres) to wear self-contained breathing
apparatus.
In paragraph (c)(3) of Sec. 1915.505, OSHA proposes to require
that the employer make sure that all fire response employees have an
annual medical examination. Further, in paragraph (c)(4), medical
records of fire response employees must be kept according to 29 CFR
1915.1020 Access to Employee Exposures and Medical records. These
proposed requirements are consistent with existing regulations found in
29 CFR 1910.156 and 29 CFR 1910.134.
In paragraph (d) of Sec. 1915.505, OSHA addresses the procedures
the employer would have to follow for organizing internal fire response
functions. Paragraph (d)(1) proposes that the employer must organize
the employer's fire response functions to make sure that there are
enough resources to safely conduct emergency operations at the site.
This language is consistent with the goals and language of paragraph
4.1.1 of NFPA 1500-2002 addressing the fire department's organizational
statement. The Committee believes organization of the internal fire
response functions is critical to its success in a fire emergency.
In paragraph (d)(2) of Sec. 1915.505, OSHA proposes that the
employer must set up written administrative regulations, standard
operating procedures, and departmental orders for fire response
functions. This proposed language is also consistent with the language
of Chapter 4 in NFPA 1500-2002 addressing the organization of fire
response providers.
In paragraph (d)(3) of Sec. 1915.505, OSHA proposes that the
employer must set up an Incident Management System (IMS) to coordinate
and direct fire response functions. It is proposed that this system
must include specific fire emergency responsibilities; how the employer
will account for all fire response employees during an emergency
operation; and what resources would be offered by outside
organizations. This proposal is consistent with the goals and language
found in paragraph 8.1 of NFPA 1500-2002. The IMS is an improved fire
department management and control system, based on actual experience
with the Incident Command System (ICS) recognized in other OSHA
standards such as 29 CFR 1910.156 Fire Brigades and 29 CFR 1910.120
Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response. Incident command is
now a subset of incident management. The new system recognizes that
command at an incident is only part of the overall management necessary
to safely respond to emergency situations.
In paragraph (d)(4) of Sec. 1915.505, OSHA proposes that employers
provide this information (of paragraph (d)) the outside fire response
organization to be used. The Committee believes that providing this
information will improve coordination and ease pre-planning efforts to
ensure a safe overall fire response. These proposed provisions are
consistent with existing OSHA requirements (29 CFR 1910.156 Fire
brigades and 29 CFR 1910.120 Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency
Response).
Paragraph (e)(1) of Sec. 1915.505, addresses the personal
protective equipment of fire response employees. OSHA proposes the
employer must provide hazard specific personal protective clothing and
equipment, at no cost, to fire response employees. It is also proposed
that the employer must make sure that each employee wears the personal
protective clothing and equipment that offers protection from the
hazards to which that employee is likely to be exposed. This general
requirement was recommended by the Committee and is consistent with the
language found in chapter 7 of NFPA 1500-2002. It is specifically
consistent with existing OSHA standards and with paragraph 7.1.2 of
NFPA 1500-2002.
In paragraph (e)(2) of Sec. 1915.505, OSHA proposes the
requirements for protective clothing's thermal stability and flame
resistance. It is proposed in paragraph (e)(2)(i) that the employer
would have to make sure that each fire response employee exposed to the
hazards of flame does not wear clothing that, when exposed to flames,
could increase the extent of injury that the fire response employee
would sustain. Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(ii) specifically prohibits
wearing clothing made from acetate, nylon, or polyester, either alone
or in blends, unless it could be shown that the fabric can withstand
the flammability hazard that could be encountered, or that the clothing
is worn in such a way to eliminate the flammability hazard that may be
encountered. This language is consistent with the language in existing
OSHA standards and in paragraph 7.1.6 of NFPA 1500-2002.
In paragraph (e)(3) of Sec. 1915.505, OSHA proposes the
requirements for respiratory protection for shipyard fire response
employees. The proposed requirements in paragraph (e)(3) are consistent
with current industry practice as discussed by the Committee.
In paragraph (e)(3)(i) of Sec. 1915.505, OSHA proposes that the
employer provide self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) to all
shipyard fire response employees who are involved in emergency
operations in an atmosphere that is immediately dangerous to life or
health (IDLH), may become IDLH, or is unknown. This language is
consistent with existing OSHA standards and paragraph 7.8.7 of NFPA
1500-2002.
In paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of Sec. 1915.505, OSHA proposes that the
employer provide SCBA to fire response employees performing emergency
operations during hazardous chemical emergencies that will expose them
to known chemicals in vapor form or to unknown chemicals. OSHA
recognizes that there may be a potential for employee exposure to
hazardous chemicals during fire response emergencies due to the nature
of shipyard employment. As proposed, this requirement would limit
employers to the use of SCBAs for this type of chemical exposure.
In paragraph (e)(3)(iii) of Sec. 1915.505, it is proposed that the
employer must provide either SCBA or respiratory protective devices.
The SCBA or respiratory device must be certified by NIOSH under 42 CFR
part 84 as suitable for the specific chemical environment, to fire
response employees who perform or support emergency operations that
will expose them to chemicals in liquid form. In this proposal, OSHA
recognizes that the hazard to employees because of liquid chemical
exposure is such that respirators other than SCBAs, such as cartridge
respirators, may provide appropriate protection and be less costly to
provide and maintain.
In paragraph (e)(3)(iv) of Sec. 1915.505, OSHA also proposes that
the employer must ensure that additional outside air supplies used in
conjunction with SCBA be positive pressure systems and certified by
NIOSH under 42 CFR part 84. Again, this proposal is consistent with
existing OSHA standards and paragraph 7.10.1.1 of NFPA 1500-2002.
In paragraph (e)(3)(v) of Sec. 1915.505, OSHA proposes that the
employer must provide only SCBA that meets the requirements of NFPA
1981-1997, Standard on Open-Circuit Self-
[[Page 76232]]
Contained Breathing Apparatus for Firefighters (Ex. 20-7). The fire
response members of the committee, stated that this has been a long
standing recommendation and has become standard equipment for all fire
response organizations throughout the country.
In paragraph (e)(3)(vi) of Sec. 1915.505, OSHA proposes that the
employer establish a respiratory protection program and use respiratory
protective equipment according to 29 CFR 1915.154 Respiratory
Protection. The Committee based this proposal on the language found in
29 CFR 1910.156, and 29 CFR 1910.134(g).
In paragraph (e)(4) of Sec. 1915.505, OSHA proposes that the
employer must supply at no cost to all fire response employees who are
exposed to the hazards of interior structural firefighting within
shipyard employment, either protective coats and trousers, or
protective coveralls; helmets; gloves; footwear; and protective hoods
that meet the applicable requirements of NFPA 1971-2000, Standard on
Protective Clothing Ensemble for Structural Firefighting (Ex. 20-8).
This proposal is based upon chapter 7 of NFPA 1500-2002.
In paragraph (e)(5) of Sec. 1915.505, OSHA proposes that the
employer must supply, at no cost to all fire response employees who are
exposed to the hazards of proximity firefighting, the appropriate
protective proximity clothing that would have to meet the applicable
requirements of NFPA 1976-2000, Standard on Protective Clothing for
Proximity Firefighting (Ex. 20-9).
It is the intent of this section to require that only the shipyard
employees who will be engaged in operations that will expose them to
the intense radiant heat of a proximity firefighting incident (the
proximity hot zone) be equipped with specialized proximity firefighting
protective clothing.
Employee protection from the hazards of proximity firefighting
situations should be viewed in a similar manner to hazardous materials
operations. That is, employees must be fully encapsulated to protect
them from the unique hazards associated with both situations. The
employer should know the locations where such potential exposure to
high radiant heat hazards exists, such as bulk flammable liquid or bulk
flammable gas facilities. By determining what operations employees
could undertake and what the potential exposure will be for those
employees conducting fire response operations, the employer will know
which employees need proximity firefighting clothing.
At an incident, the employer must establish the boundaries of the
proximity hot zone for that incident and require all who must operate
within those boundaries to be protected from the intense radiant heat.
Intense radiant heat may cause injury to the employees or damage or
destroy their structural firefighting protective clothing. The employer
could make the decision to evacuate the area and protect employees from
such exposures. Then the employer can summon mutual aid that is
equipped with the appropriate equipment and proximity protective
clothing to handle the proximity hot zone of the incident. The employer
could also use fixed protection systems available at the facility to
apply extinguishing agents (master streams, water deluge, foam, etc.)
into the proximity hot zone. Alternatively, the employer could train
and equip his or her own response employees to be able to fully deal
with these incidents.
Not every employee needs to be included in the proximity hot zone
operations unless the employer's written statement or policy requires
these resources. For example, the employer may plan fire response
operations that would contain and control the fire without the need for
employees' operating within the proximity hot zone. Therefore, the
employer would not need to provide proximity firefighting protective
clothing. Using other protective strategies (including but not limited
to physical shields or barriers, or large volume water stream
applications that are sustained over the entire duration of the
incident) could protect employees who otherwise would need proximity
firefighting protective clothing. This language is consistent with the
language in paragraph 7.3 of NFPA 1500-2002.
In paragraph (e)(6) of Sec. 1915.505, OSHA proposes that the
employer provide a Personal Alert Safety System (PASS) device to each
fire response employee involved in firefighting operations. The PASS
devices must meet the requirements of NFPA 1982-1998, Standard on
Personal Alert Safety Systems (PASS) for Firefighters (Ex. 19-10). This
language is consistent with the language in paragraph 7.13.1 of NFPA
1500-2002.
A PASS is a device that is attached to or is an integral part of
self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). It automatically sounds a
distinctive alarm (some units also display a flashing strobe light) if
a fire response employee becomes immobile for a pre-determined period
of time (usually 30-40 seconds). For example, the device would be
activated in the event a fire responder becomes incapacitated from
structural collapse or runs out of breathing air. It can also be
activated manually by the fire response employee. Fire response
employees who might become trapped or lost, but are not unconscious,
can also activate the device to help searchers locate them. The shrill
alarm allows rescuers to locate the wearer quickly in dark or heavy
smoke conditions. The alerting sound of a PASS can easily be
distinguished from a low air supply alarm emitted by a SCBA. The
Committee agreed that it is every fire fighter's nightmare to be in a
fire situation and hear both alarms coming from a comrade's position.
This means the comrade has run out of air and is motionless. All
incidental fire response activities will immediately stop until the
disabled fire fighter is located and pulled to safety. PASS devices are
now considered standard issue and are recommended by NFPA Standard No.
1982-1998. It is also industry practice.
Section 1915.505(e)(7) addresses life safety ropes, body harnesses,
and hardware. The workgroup, based on their experience, proposed this
requirement to the Committee. Their recommendation is consistent with
current practice in the fire service. The committee accepted the
workgroups recommendations.
In paragraph (e)(7)(i) of Sec. 1915.505, OSHA proposes that all
life safety ropes, body harnesses, and hardware used by fire response
employees for emergency operations must meet the applicable
requirements of NFPA 1983-2001, Standard on Fire Service Life Safety
Rope, Harnesses, and Hardware (Ex. 19-11). This is consistent with
subpart I of this part and paragraph 7.14.1 of NFPA 1500-2002.
In paragraph (e)(7)(ii) of Sec. 1915.505, OSHA proposes that only
class I body harnesses may be used to attach fire response employees to
ladders and aerial devices. This is consistent with NFPA 1983-2001.
In paragraph (e)(7)(iii) of Sec. 1915.505, OSHA proposes that only
class II and class III body harnesses may be used by fire response
employees for fall arrest and repelling operations. This is consistent
with NFPA 1983-2001.
In paragraph (f) of Sec. 1915.505, OSHA addresses equipment
maintenance.
In paragraph (f)(1) of Sec. 1915.505, OSHA proposes that the
employer must inspect and maintain personal protective equipment used
to protect fire response employees to make sure that it provides the
intended protection. Such inspection and maintenance is consistent with
OSHA's personal protective equipment standards.
[[Page 76233]]
In paragraph (f)(2) of Sec. 1915.505, OSHA addresses the
maintenance of fire response equipment. The requirements for testing
and maintaining fire response equipment are consistent with sound
safety practices and the requirements for tools and equipment found in
chapter 7 of NFPA 1500-2002.
In paragraph (f)(2)(i) of Sec. 1915.505, the employer is required
to keep fire response equipment in a state of readiness.
In paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of Sec. 1915.505, OSHA proposes that the
employer must make sure that all fire hose coupling and connection
threads are standardized throughout the facility and on vessels and
vessel sections by providing the same type of hose coupling and
connection threads for hoses of the same or similar diameter. It is
important to stress the need for standardized or compatible threads in
couplings and connections. The Committee heard testimony from fire
department personnel stressing the need for compatibility and
standardization. Those fire department representatives indicated for
example, that many 1\1/2\-inch hoses have threads that look very
similar but cannot be connected.
In paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of Sec. 1915.505, OSHA proposes that if
the employer uses an outside fire organization for fire response and
the employer expects them to use the employer's facility's or vessel's
or vessel section's fire response equipment, then the employer must
make sure that either all the facility's or vessel's or vessel
section's hose and coupling connection threads are the same as those
used by the outside fire authority or that suitable adapter couplings
are supplied. This language is consistent with the language found in
paragraph 9.3 of NFPA 14-2000 (Ex. 20-12).
Section 1915.506 Hazards of Fixed Extinguishing Systems on Board
Vessels and Vessel Sections
This section addresses the hazards associated with fixed
extinguishing systems on board vessels and vessel sections that could
create a hazardous atmosphere when activated in shipyard employment,
regardless of geographic location. Of particular concern is the
incorrect or inadvertent activation of these systems. Fixed fire
extinguishing systems found on land side are covered by the next
section of this proposed subpart, Sec. 1915.507 Land side Fire
Protection Systems.
The hazards associated with the use of fixed extinguishing systems
on board vessels and vessel sections have long been recognized by the
United States Coast Guard (USCG) as evidenced by Coast Guard Commandant
Notices and Instructions that date to 1978. The International Maritime
Organization \2\ (IMO) has also addressed this issue by issuing
regulations that are part of the International Convention for the
Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The International Maritime Organization is the United
Nations' specialized agency responsible for improving maritime
safety and preventing pollution from ships.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testing these ships' fixed extinguishing systems has led to several
fatalities. In October, 1996, aboard the Italian flag liquid natural
gas (LNG) carrier SNAM PORTVENERE, an American Bureau of Shipping (ABS)
surveyor and five shipyard technicians were killed when carbon dioxide
(CO2) was released accidently from a fixed fire
extinguishing system that was being tested. On May 3, 1993, aboard the
M/V CAPE DIAMOND, while a contractor was testing a low pressure
CO2 system that protected the ship's engine room,
CO2 was discharged accidently, causing the deaths of a Coast
Guard marine inspector and a shipyard contractor. Additionally, an
intentional activation of a manual CO2 extinguishing system
aboard the Australian naval vessel HMS APPLELEAF, caused the death of
four persons. These incidents were attributed to human error in which
the discharge of CO2 extinguishing systems protecting spaces
aboard vessels was allowed to occur while employees were working
inside.
The Committee recognized and OSHA agrees that although the casualty
history reveals problems with only CO2 systems, the
potential exists for the use of new extinguishing agents and
application methods to produce hazards similar to CO2.
Therefore, the proposed employer's responsibilities in paragraph (a) of
Sec. 1915.506 apply to all fixed extinguishing systems aboard vessels
and vessel sections, regardless of geographic location, that may result
in a hazardous atmosphere if discharged. It is very likely that the
only systems that may be affected by this regulation will be those that
employ gaseous or two-phase (gaseous/liquid) extinguishing agents.
However, by including all systems that may create a hazardous
atmosphere when activated, the Committee believes that the regulation
will be broad enough to cover future systems and/or extinguishing
agents that are currently unforeseen. Examples of future possibilities
include systems employing dry chemical extinguishing agents (these
systems currently exist but are not typically installed on vessels),
combination dual water/dry chemical systems, or systems using Halon
alternative agents.
While developing this proposal, the Committee discussed whether to
include requirements for other systems that do not cause hazardous
atmospheres when activated, such as foam and automatic water sprinkler
systems. After extensive discussion, the Committee decided that a
standard for these systems was not necessary because they are not
typically relied upon on board vessels and vessel sections, and they do
not pose a significant safety and health threat to employees.
In proposed paragraph (b) of Sec. 1915.506, the Committee agreed
to require that systems, whether designed to be activated automatically
or manually, be physically isolated or be provided with other positive
means to prevent discharge of the systems before any work is done in a
space equipped with fixed extinguishing systems. The Committee
recognized the increased hazard posed by systems that are activated by
either pneumatic, electronic, or other means, with no human action
necessary to set them into operation. However, even if a system also
has a manual means of activation, it would have to be physically
isolated or provided with other positive means to prevent discharge.
Examples of other positive means can be found in paragraph (c) of this
section. Systems that are activated automatically are normally located
in typically unoccupied spaces such as paint lockers and storage
lockers, but can also be found in normally occupied spaces such as
engine rooms and pump rooms.
In paragraphs (b), (d), and (e) of Sec. 1915.506, the term
physically isolated refers to physically preventing the extinguishing
agent from entering the work area. This is typically done by installing
a blank (a flat piece of metal between two flanges) in the supply line
of the extinguishing system so that the extinguishing agent can not
possibly be released into the protected area.
Paragraph (b) of Sec. 1915.506 sets forth the provisions that must
be completed before any work is done in a space equipped with such
fixed fire extinguishing systems. In paragraph (b)(1) of Sec.
1915.506, OSHA proposes that systems must be physically isolated or
have other positive means to prevent discharge.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) of Sec. 1915.506 requires employee
training to ensure recognition of systems discharge and evacuation
alarms, and recognition of the appropriate escape routes. This training
consists of making sure that employees recognize the discharge and
[[Page 76234]]
evacuation alarms and escape routes in accordance with Sec. 1915.508
of this subpart.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3) of Sec. 1915.506 was included as a
result of Coast Guard information about a casualty at sea. The United
States Coast Guard recognized the need to ensure adequate means of
escape from spaces protected by CO2 systems. In this
incident, the chief engineer inadvertently discharged CO2
into a space with an inward opening door. Members of the crew were
unable to open the door until pressure in the space subsided. During
that time some crew members were asphyxiated. As a result of this
incident the Coast Guard recommended that during inspections,
CO2 storage provisions and means of escape should be
evaluated. The Coast Guard stated further that protective measures
should be provided, such as making sure that doors open outward, that
there are kick-out panels in doors or bulkheads, that doors are blocked
open when the space is occupied, or that there are sufficient vent
openings to the atmosphere. These recommendations are also recognized
in COMDTINST 16000.7, MSM, Vol. II (Ex. 17) and SOLAS 74/78 (Ex. 18)
which require outward opening access doors in CO2 protected spaces
aboard vessels.
Proposed Sec. 1915.506(b)(4) addresses the Committee's concern
with inward opening doors, hatches, scuttles, and other potential
barriers that may close off escape routes as a result of system
activation. The Committee recognized that fully opening or removing
doors may cause unacceptable exposures of equipment or employees to the
elements (e.g. freezing, precipitation, etc.) and, therefore, proposed
that this concern may be satisfied by placing a blocking device between
the door and door frame to make sure that in the event of system
discharge escape routes will not be impaired.
OSHA recognizes that placing a blocking device in a fire door is
normally an unacceptable practice. However, in this case, because of
the hazard of asphyxiation, OSHA would allow the doors to be blocked
open, as long as the blocks are removed before the system is relied
upon to provide fire protection.
Proposed paragraph (b)(5) of Sec. 1915.506 requires employee
training in the hazards associated with extinguishing systems, such as
how to avoid disturbing system components and equipment that are
located within spaces. Such components and equipment include piping,
cables, linkages, detection devices, activation devices, and alarm
devices. Typically in shipyard employment, employees rig materials and
equipment in and out of vessel and vessel sections, using chain falls
and come-alongs. Employees untrained about the dangers of disturbing
system components could accidently activate the system while in the
process of rigging.
The Committee recognized that the majority of current
CO2 systems are not equipped with components and
instrumentation that would allow a simple method for physically
isolating the system. Therefore, the Committee proposed paragraph (c)
of 1915.506 to allow work in a space protected by a system activated
solely by manual means without the need to physically isolate. Although
the safest method is to physically isolate the system, OSHA believes
that the requirements included in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of
Sec. 1915.506 provide an acceptable level of safety. One reason for
these options is the impracticality of physically isolating the system
for routine and short-duration maintenance and repairs. The Committee
wanted to encourage manufacturers, standards writing agencies, and end
users to work to develop a simple and practical means for physically
isolating existing and future systems.
Proposed paragraph (c) of Sec. 1915.506 is intended to minimize
the risk of intentional or accidental activation of a manual system
during sea trials by requiring that all activation stations, whether
remote or local, must be secured under lock and key or an attendant
posted. The intent is to prevent unauthorized persons access to the
activation controls of a manual system.
Proposed paragraphs (d) and (e) of Sec. 1915.506 address system
testing and system maintenance operations. These have been demonstrated
to be the most likely causes of accidental system activation. The Coast
Guard currently requires fixed fire extinguishing systems to be
disconnected when undergoing any testing or maintenance. The need for
these requirements is demonstrated clearly by the fatalities that
occurred while testing the fixed system on the M/V CAPE DIAMOND
mentioned above. As a result of this incident the Coast Guard
recommended that personnel in spaces protected by CO2
systems be evacuated during testing, unless suitable safeguards are
instituted, such as isolating the CO2 supply from the
protected space or providing personnel with self-contained breathing
apparatus (SCBA).
The Committee considered the Coast Guard recommendation for
employees doing testing to have the option of using SCBAs or using
emergency escape breathing devices (EEBD). But the Committee concluded
that, because the potential for accidental discharge is so great during
testing and maintenance of the system, it is necessary to physically
isolate the system during testing and maintenance. The Committee
further proposed requiring evacuation of the space by all personnel not
directly involved in testing. The reason for proposing both to
physically isolate the system and to evacuate non-essential personnel
during testing is that testing of the system typically results in alarm
activation and discharge of extinguishing agent. Therefore all
indications of a test gone awry may be ignored as a false or nuisance
alarm by non-essential employees until it is too late to evacuate the
space safety. OSHA agreed that the proposal to evacuate all personnel
not involved in testing the system best protects the safety of shipyard
employees.
Several members of the Committee noted that during sea trials, the
employer may expect employees to rely on the on board fixed
extinguishing system in the event of a fire. In proposed paragraph (f)
of Sec. 1915.506, OSHA addresses the hazards associated with using
fixed fire extinguishing systems by proposing that employees be trained
and designated as necessary to operate and activate the system
properly. Further, OSHA proposes that all employees be evacuated from
protected spaces, affected areas, and accounted for before the
discharge of the system.
Two serious incidents resulting in ten fatalities were caused by
intentional activation of a manual CO2 extinguishing system
protecting an engine room while personnel were trapped inside. One
incident occurred on the SNAM PORTOVENERE. Lloyd's Register reported on
November 7, 1996, that ``an autopsy on the victims revealed that carbon
dioxide was the cause of death, rather than the fire or smoke from the
blaze which had been reported in the engine room. Sources said the fire
was small and was being put out with hand extinguishers when the carbon
dioxide plant was activated, saturating about 85% of the engine room
within 2 minutes, according to one of the technicians who survived the
incident.'' (Ex. 10-1). OSHA therefore proposes in paragraph (f)(1) of
Sec. 1915.506 to require that employees be trained and designated to
operate fixed manual systems when the employer expects these systems to
be relied on in the event of a fire.
As reported in the London Guardian, the second incident occurred
aboard the
[[Page 76235]]
HMS APPLELEAF, when, ``an Australian naval captain ordered that the
engine room be sealed off and the compartment flooded with carbon
dioxide--with four crew members inside.'' (Ex. 10-2). Although the
report was not clear as to whether or not the cause of the deaths in
this case was from asphyxiation by the carbon dioxide or from fire and
smoke exposure, the incident illustrates the hazards associated with
discharging a lethal concentration of an extinguishing agent into an
occupied, enclosed space. The Committee strongly recommended and OSHA
agreed to propose in paragraph (f)(2) of Sec. 1915.506 to require that
the protected space and affected areas must be evacuated completely and
all employees accounted for before discharge of the fixed manual
extinguishing system.
Section 1915.507 Land Side Fire Protection Systems
While developing these provisions, the Committee examined existing
OSHA regulations for fire protection. Currently there are several OSHA
requirements for land side portable and fixed fire protection systems
in part 1915. For flammable liquids, Sec. 1915.36(a)(6) requires
``Suitable fire extinguishing equipment shall be immediately available
in the work area and shall be maintained in a state of readiness for
instant use.'' For welding, cutting and heating operations, Sec.
1915.52(a)(2) requires, ``If the object to be welded, cut or heated
cannot be moved and if all the fire hazards including combustible
cargoes cannot be removed, positive means shall be taken to confine the
heat, sparks, and slag, and to protect the immovable fire hazards from
them.'' For all hot work Sec. 1915.52(b)(2) requires ``Suitable fire
extinguishing equipment shall be immediately available in the work area
and shall be maintained in a state of readiness for instant use.'' For
all hot work Sec. 1915.52(b)(4) requires that ``Vaporizing liquid
extinguishers shall not be used in enclosed spaces.''
Additionally, for ship breaking operations only, Sec. 1915.52(c)
requires ``In all cases, suitable fire extinguishing equipment shall be
immediately available in the work area and shall be maintained in a
state of readiness for instant use. Personnel assigned to contain fires
within controllable limits shall be instructed as to the specific
anticipated fire hazards and how the firefighting equipment provided is
to be used.'' For general working conditions, Sec. 1915.91(d)
requires, ``Free access shall be maintained at all times to all exits
and to all fire alarm boxes or fire extinguishing equipment.'' While
these standards apply specifically to fire protection in shipyard
employment, the Committee recognized that there are also additional
standards in the part 1910 General Industry Standards that are
currently used as guidelines in shipyard employment and are accepted
industry practice. The Committee has recommended, and OSHA agrees, that
the existing requirements in Sec. 1915 that address fire protection
will be replaced by the requirements of this subpart.
Subpart L of part 1910 contains the general industry standards for
portable and fixed fire suppression systems. The specific types of
equipment and systems regulated include portable fire extinguishers,
standpipe and hose systems, automatic sprinkler systems, and fixed
extinguishing systems using liquid, solid, or gaseous extinguishing
agents. There are also requirements for fire detection and fire alarm
systems. The current standards in subpart L were developed in 1980 (45
FR 60710) as a major revision to the original 6(a) standards adopted in
May, 1971. While subpart L of part 1910 does not apply to the maritime
industry (29 CFR 1910.155), many of these standards are used
voluntarily as guidelines to control hazards to shipyard employees
working in shipyard employment.
In addition to reviewing current OSHA standards, the Committee also
considered applicable national consensus standards and codes developed
by NFPA. The NFPA codes and standards are the recommendations of the
NFPA consumers, property owners, fire authorities, federal agencies,
insurance companies, and other persons interested in providing fire
safety to life and property. The NFPA codes and standards are purely
advisory documents so far as the NFPA is concerned. They become an
influential force for the public when adopted by governmental
authority. Many of the NFPA standards were adopted under the section 6
(a) of Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, through its
standards, uses NFPA codes and standards in two ways: In most cases,
the codes or standards are incorporated by reference, citing a
particular edition. This may not be the latest edition published by the
Association. In other cases, the OSHA standards actually extract some
or all of the text from NFPA codes and standards and include it in the
regulatory text of the OSHA rule.
With respect to this section (land side fire protection systems) of
the proposal, the Committee recommended that OSHA incorporate by
reference, the most current edition of an NFPA code or standard rather
than extract the NFPA text and publish it as the OSHA rule. OSHA
proposes, in this section, to follow the Committee's recommendation and
incorporate by reference the necessary NFPA codes and standards. The
standards proposed in this notice are based upon the current and
applicable OSHA and NFPA codes and standards reviewed by the Committee.
In paragraph (a) of Sec. 1915.507, OSHA proposes to establish the
employer's responsibilities under the section. Under the proposed rule,
the employer would be responsible for ensuring that all fixed and
portable fire protection systems installed to meet a particular OSHA
standard comply with the appropriate proposed requirements of this
section. The proposed rules in this section do not apply to fixed or
portable fire protection systems the employer has installed to meet
requirements other than OSHA's.
This proposal is consistent with the philosophy adopted in part
1910 for regulating fixed and portable fire extinguishing systems. OSHA
found during the development of the general industry requirements for
fixed and portable fire protection systems that some employers may opt
to take property protection systems out of service rather than upgrade
them to meet OSHA standards, an action that is contrary to basic fire
prevention policy and property protection concepts. Therefore, rather
than risk the loss of property, and the associated economic impact of
such losses, OSHA decided in 1980 to regulate only those systems it
requires. (See 45 FR 60710.) Fire protection systems installed to meet
other codes or standards would not be regulated by OSHA.
In paragraph (b) of Sec. 1915.507, OSHA proposes to regulate the
use of portable fire extinguishers and hose systems. By proposing to
incorporate by reference NFPA 10-1998, Standard for Portable Fire
Extinguishers (Ex. 20-1) in paragraph (b) of this section, the employer
may replace up to one-half of the required complement of fire
extinguishers by uniformly spaced 1\1/2\-inch (3.8 cm) hose stations.
If the employer chooses to use hose systems, then the employer would
have to meet the requirements of NFPA 14-2000, Standard for the
Installation of Standpipe Systems (Ex. 20-12). This is consistent with
current OSHA practice under 29 CFR 1910.157 and 1910.158. The
incorporation by reference here, in paragraph (b)(1) of Sec. 1915.507,
should impose no greater burden on employers. Rather, it will permit
some flexibility in
[[Page 76236]]
offering protection for incipient stage fires.
In paragraph (b)(2) of this section, OSHA is proposing that the
employer may use hose lines attached to class II or class III standpipe
systems in place of portable fire extinguishers if those hose systems
meet the applicable selection, installation, inspection, maintenance,
and testing requirements of NFPA 14-2000 (Ex. 19-12), Standard for the
Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems.
OSHA proposes in paragraph (c) of Sec. 1915.507 to address the
general requirements of fixed extinguishing systems the employer must
install to meet a particular OSHA standard. In paragraph (c)(1) OSHA
requires that all fixed extinguishing systems required by OSHA must be
approved for their use by a National Recognized Testing Laboratory
(NRTL). This is consistent with OSHA's current practice of requiring
that all fire protection equipment and systems be approved for their
purpose and design by a NRTL.
In paragraph (c)(2) of Sec. 1915.507, OSHA proposes, as the
Committee recommended, that employers must notify employees and take
the necessary precautions to protect employees when a fire
extinguishing system becomes inoperable.
In paragraph (c)(3) of Sec. 1915.507, OSHA also requires that any
inoperable system be repaired by a qualified technician or mechanic.
This proposal is consistent with and taken from current, fire
protection standards (29 CFR 1910.160 and NFPA 12-2000).
OSHA proposes in paragraph (c)(4) of Sec. 1915.507 that when an
area remains hazardous to employee safety or health as a result of the
discharge of an extinguishing agent, personal protective equipment must
be provided to employees who enter the discharge area or effective
safeguards must be provided to warn employees not to enter the
discharge area. This proposal is consistent with the requirements in
Sec. 1910.160(c).
This paragraph is necessary because some systems must be designed
to discharge extinguishing agents in concentrations greater than what
is safe for humans. These systems, with the potential for creating a
hazard to employees, need special consideration and control. OSHA
proposes to carry the current requirement in Sec. 1910.160(c) over to
the proposal, recognizing that the hazards of such systems need to be
identified and controlled in shipyard employment. This is particularly
true of systems using carbon dioxide and some of the newer Halon
replacement agents. OSHA is also proposing a note to this paragraph
directing the reader to Sec. 1915.12, Precautions and the order of
testing before entering confined and enclosed spaces and other
dangerous atmospheres, for additional requirements for entry into
dangerous atmospheres that may be created by the discharge of certain
extinguishing agents.
In paragraph (c)(5) of Sec. 1915.507, OSHA proposes to require the
employer to post hazard warning or caution signs at both the entrance
to and inside of areas protected by fixed systems that could discharge
extinguishing agents in concentrations that are known to be hazardous
to employee safety or health. This proposal is consistent with
paragraph (b)(5) of 29 CFR 1910.160.
In paragraph (c)(6) of Sec. 1915.507, OSHA proposes, as
recommended by the Committee, that the employer must select, install,
inspect, maintain, and test all automatic fire detection systems and
emergency alarms according to the NFPA 72-1999, National Fire Alarm
Code (Ex. 19-13). Presently, OSHA requires only that those fire
detection systems and emergency alarms required to meet a specific OSHA
standard meet the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.164 and 1910.165. OSHA's
current standards in Sec. Sec. 1910.164 and 1910.165 were based upon
existing standards and technology available in the 1970s when OSHA
developed the standard. Since that time, several technological
advancements have occurred in both fire detection and fire alarm
technology.
As a result, the NFPA consensus committee responsible for
developing fire detection and alarm standards and codes made extensive
changes to NFPA 72. The most recent edition of their consensus
standard, the 1999 edition, recognizes many changes that have taken
place in the detection and alarm industry, such as those required by
the Americans with Disabilities Act, software testing, fire modeling,
and communication technology. OSHA believes, as the Committee
recommended, that incorporating by reference, NFPA 72-1999 as the OSHA
standard for designing and installing all fire detection and alarm
systems will provide employees with protections consistent with
protections provided by other codes and standards used by local
authorities having jurisdiction.
OSHA, in paragraph (d) of this section, addresses the selection,
installation, maintenance, inspection, and testing requirements for
specific types of fixed fire extinguishing systems the employer uses to
meet a particular OSHA standard. In paragraph (d)(1) OSHA proposes, as
recommended by the Committee, that standpipe and hose systems in land
side facilities follow NFPA 14-2000.
In paragraph (d)(2) of Sec. 1915.507, OSHA proposes to incorporate
by reference, NFPA 13-1999, Standard for the Installation of Automatic
Sprinkler Systems (Ex. 19-14); NFPA 750-2000, Standard on Water Mist
Extinguishing Systems (Ex. 19-15); and NFPA 25-2002, Standard for the
Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-based Fire Protection
Systems (Ex. 19-16), as the OSHA standard for installing OSHA-required
automatic sprinkler systems in land side facilities. As above, this
standard is being incorporated by reference at the recommendation of
the Committee. OSHA does not believe that there is any increased burden
placed upon employers by incorporating by reference this newer edition
of the standard OSHA used in developing 29 CFR 1910.159. One of OSHA's
goals with this proposal is to update outdated standards used as source
standards in previous OSHA rules.
OSHA is also proposing a new standard in paragraph (d)(2) that
would address installing fixed extinguishing systems that use water
mist as the extinguishing agent. OSHA proposes to incorporate by
reference NFPA 750-2000, Standard on Water Mist Extinguishing Systems
(Ex. 19-15), as the OSHA standard for installing this type of system.
The systems are found land side in places such as flammable liquid
storage facilities and electrical equipment spaces.
In paragraph (d)(3) of Sec. 1915.507, OSHA proposes to incorporate
by reference several NFPA standards for fixed extinguishing systems
that use water spray or foam for the extinguishing agent. OSHA proposes
to incorporate by reference: the NFPA 11-2000, Standard for Low-
Expansion Foam (Ex. 19-17); the NFPA 11A-1999, Standard for Medium- and
High-Expansion Foam (Ex. 19-18); and NFPA 15-2002, Standard for Water
Spray Fixed Systems for Fire Protection (Ex. 19-19) as the OSHA
standards for installing fixed foam extinguishing systems. The
provisions of this proposed incorporation by reference differentiate
between the various expansion densities of foam discharges.
Current OSHA standards in part 1910 address foam extinguishing
systems in general rather than specific terms. As stated above, one of
OSHA's goals is to incorporate current standards in this proposal.
Therefore, OSHA is proposing to incorporate by reference both NFPA 11-
2000 and NFPA 11A-1999 to recognize current technologies and the
possible use of low-, medium-, and high-expansion foam systems in
[[Page 76237]]
shipyard employment. OSHA believes this incorporation by reference will
offer greater guidance and flexibility to those employers who choose to
use fixed foam extinguishing systems to meet OSHA's standards.
In paragraph (d)(4) of Sec. 1915.507, OSHA proposes to incorporate
by reference the current edition of NFPA 17-1998, Standard for Dry
Chemical Extinguishing Systems (Ex. 20-20), as the OSHA standard for
installing fixed extinguishing systems using dry chemical extinguishing
agents. Again, this proposed paragraph would apply only to those fixed
dry chemical extinguishing systems the employer chooses to install to
meet a particular OSHA standard. OSHA's proposal is based upon the
Committee's recommendation.
In paragraph (d)(5) of Sec. 1915.507, OSHA proposes to incorporate
by reference the current edition of NFPA standards that address fixed
extinguishing systems using gas as the extinguishing agent.
Specifically, for standards for designing and installing fixed
extinguishing systems, OSHA references NFPA 12-2000, Standard on Carbon
Dioxide Extinguishing Systems (Ex. 20-21); NFPA 12A-1997, Standard on
Halon 1301 Extinguishing Systems (Ex. 20-22); and NFPA 2001-2000,
Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems (Ex. 20-23).
OSHA recognizes that the fire extinguishing agent Halon 1301 is
being phased out because of environmental concerns. However, for
economic reasons, existing Halon 1301 systems may remain in service
until such time as they are replaced by an alternative agent.
Recognizing that existing Halon 1301 systems that remain in service,
OSHA proposes to continue regulating their design and installation to
ensure employee safety. For the systems that will replace Halon, OSHA
is proposing for the first time that the employer meet NFPA 2001-2000
for their design and installation. This new proposal is based upon the
Committee's recommendation that OSHA incorporate by reference the most
recent edition of applicable NFPA standards to protect employees from
hazards in the workplace.
Section 1915.508 Training
The Committee unanimously recognized the importance of employee
training in combating the hazards of fire throughout shipyard
employment. Specific emphasis is placed on hazard recognition, fire
watch, and fire response. This is consistent with OSHA's long held
philosophy that an adequately trained employee is a safe employee. OSHA
is proposing the Committee's full recommendations regarding training.
Also, OSHA's proposal extends the training requirement beyond ship
breaking operations to include all activities in shipyard employment
regardless of geographic location. This would include operations
involving shipbuilding and ship repair activities as well as other
activities engaged in by shipyard workers.
Under paragraph (a) of Sec. 1915.508, the employer must train
employees expected to perform incipient stage firefighting on board
vessels, in vessel sections, and in land side facilities. Such training
must be conducted initially upon employment and when necessary to keep
them proficient in the following: (1) The general principles of using
fire extinguishers or hose lines, the hazards involved with incipient
firefighting, and the procedures used to reduce these hazards; (2) the
hazards associated with fixed and portable fire protection systems that
they may use or to which they may be exposed during discharge of those
systems; (3) the activation and operations of fixed and portable fire
protection systems provided for their use in the workplace; (4) the
emergency alarm signals, including system discharge and employee
evacuation alarms; and (5) the primary and secondary evacuation routes
they must use in the event of a fire in the workplace.
At the Houston meeting held in February, 2002, the Committee agreed
to add a note to paragraph (a) of Sec. 1915.508 stating that while all
vessels and vessel sections have a primary evacuation route, not all
will have a secondary evacuation route. This language was added as
clarification to paragraph (a)(5) because although this fire protection
standard applies to all of shipyard employment, the uniqueness of
vessels and vessel sections in comparison to buildings or structures
should be noted.
OSHA's proposal is consistent with the current training
requirements found in part 1915 for ship breaking activities and in
part 1910 for other shipyard activities. The requirement to train and
retrain selected employees is based upon the current requirements found
in 29 CFR 1910.157.
In paragraph (b) of Sec. 1915.508, OSHA addresses training
requirements for fire response employees and the training requirement
found in existing paragraph (c) of Sec. 1915.52. That paragraph
requires that, only for ship breaking operations, all personnel
assigned to contain fires within controllable limits must be instructed
about the specific anticipated fire hazards and how the firefighting
equipment provided is to be used.
In paragraph (b)(1) of Sec. 1915.508, OSHA proposes that the
employer must have a written training policy, as part of the Fire
Safety Plan (Sec. 1915.502) of this part, stating that fire response
employees are to be trained and capable of carrying out their duties
and responsibilities at all times. This is consistent with the
requirements found in 29 CFR 1910.156 and NFPA 1500-2002.
In paragraph (b)(2), OSHA proposes that the employer keep written
standard operating procedures (SOPs) that address anticipated emergency
operations and update these procedures as necessary. The Committee
concluded, and OSHA agrees, that written standard operating procedures
are standard training tools that represent the best practice in the
industry. This is consistent with the language in paragraphs 3-1.5 and
3-1.8 of NFPA 1500-2001.
In paragraph (b)(3) of Sec. 1915.508, OSHA proposes that the
employer review, in advance, all training programs and hands-on
sessions to make sure that fire response employees are protected from
training accidents. This proposal is based on a recommendation from the
workgroup with full Committee approval and not from any established
standard. The proposal requires a review of all training programs to
make sure that the procedure will not expose trainees and their
instructors to hazardous training conditions. The proposal should
prevent the occurrence of accidents resulting from unexpected events
such as flare-ups, collapses, entrapments, and stress-induced injuries
during training evolutions.
In paragraph (b)(4) of Sec. 1915.508, OSHA proposes that all fire
response employees receive adequate training for carrying out their
duties and responsibilities under the employer's standard operating
procedures. This training program must make sure that these employees
remain competent to respond to a fire. For example, the employee must
know how to respond to a fire on board a vessel, where the pier hook-
ups are located, how to gain access to the vessel, the location of the
fire within the vessel, and the type of fire.
In paragraph (b)(5) of Sec. 1915.508, OSHA proposes that the
employer make sure that new fire response service employees are trained
before they engage in emergency duties so that they can work safely and
effectively at a fire scene. This language is consistent with the
language in paragraph 3-1.3 of NFPA 1500-2002. The purpose of this
proposal is to make sure that employees are trained to perform the
duties
[[Page 76238]]
expected of them. If they have not been trained in a particular skill,
they would not be permitted to perform any duty involving that skill.
However, they may respond and perform duties for which they have been
trained even if they have not received the entire training module for
their position.
In paragraph (b)(6) of Sec. 1915.508, OSHA proposes that the
employer provide training for firefighters at least quarterly,
according to the employer's written operational procedures. The
Committee recommended that quarterly training is for actual
firefighters, not necessarily for other fire response personnel who
usually have just one function, such as connecting hoses to fire mains,
starting fire pumps, or directing traffic. This language is consistent
with the current requirement in 29 CFR 1910.156(c)(2) which requires
annual training for all fire brigade members and quarterly training for
those fire brigade members who may perform interior structural
firefighting operations. The workgroup believed that the quarterly
training requirement was appropriate because most fire response
operations in shipyard employment, whether on the vessel or in land
side facilities, would be beyond the incipient stage and most likely
involve an interior attack.
In paragraph (b)(7) of Sec. 1915.508, OSHA proposes that all fire
response operations training must be conducted by qualified
instructors. The Committee recognized, as does OSHA, the importance of
using qualified instructors in all training provisions required by this
section. This language is consistent with the language in paragraph
5.2.11 of NFPA 1500-2002.
In paragraph (b)(8) of Sec. 1915.508, OSHA proposes that any
training the employer does that involves live fire-fighting exercises
would have to be done according to NFPA 1403-2002, Standard on Live
Fire Training Evolutions (Ex. 19-24). This language is consistent with
paragraphs 4.9.4 and 5.2.10 of NFPA 1500-2001.
In paragraph (b)(9) of Sec. 1915.508, OSHA proposes that the
employer must provide semiannual drills that cover site-specific
operations, occupancies, buildings, vessels and vessel sections, and
hazards, according to the employer's written operational procedures.
The semiannual requirement for drills is consistent with the
recommended frequency found in paragraph 5.3 of NFPA 1500-2002.
The Committee had some concerns about the requirement for the
shipyard employment's fire department to perform two training drills
within a one-year period. Some members of the Committee requested that
OSHA count a fire response as one training drill. Most of the members
did not want to count a fire response as a training drill citing that
the drill is to be used for assessing and improving operational or
deployment procedures. When an alarm is sounded and the shipyard fire
department responds, the on-scene command is coordinating the scene and
cannot simultaneously evaluate the response. The commander's primary
responsibility is to ensure that their employees respond safely. The
Committee understands that at the end of the response, the fire
department's employees evaluate their deployment tactics, site-specific
approach (buildings, shops, vessels and vessel sections), and hazards.
This is usual and customary throughout the country and is not to be
considered a training drill. Drills are used for the sole purpose of
training, and fire response is for saving lives and property. OSHA
agrees that fire responses are not to be considered drills for the
purposes of this paragraph.
In paragraph (b)(10) of Sec. 1915.508, OSHA proposes that the
employer must not use smoke generating devices that could create a
hazardous atmosphere in training exercises. This includes training done
on vessels and vessels sections as well as in buildings and other
structures. This language is consistent with paragraph 8.3.2 of NFPA
1500-2002. According to the NFPA Committee that developed NFPA 1500-
2002, several accidents have occurred where smoke bombs or other smoke-
generating devices that produce a toxic atmosphere have been used for
training exercises. Where the employer must simulate emergency
conditions, smoke-generating devices that do not create a hazard must
be used.
Paragraph (c) of Sec. 1915.503 sets forth the training
requirements for fire watch duty. The Committee recommended that OSHA
propose specific language stating when a shipyard employer should train
workers as fire watches.
In paragraph (c)(1) of Sec. 1915.508, OSHA proposes that the
employer make sure the worker has been trained: (i) Before beginning
the fire watch; (ii) when there is a change in operations that presents
a hazard for which the worker has not been previously trained; or (iii)
when the employer determines that the fire watch employee needs to be
trained.
The Committee urged OSHA to include in the requirements for fire
watch training a basic understanding of fire behavior that covers such
elements as awareness, anticipation of different classes of fire in
combination with different physical work areas, and extinguishing
agents and their uses. The Committee recognizes that the fire watch's
role is important in protecting lives and preventing fires within
shipyard employment. To be able to evaluate a work area and to consider
both the physical conditions and possible adverse effects of a fire in
that area are also important skills that a fire watch needs to have.
The Committee did not want to specify a particular course that must be
used to train fire watches. OSHA has followed the recommendation by
proposing these requirements in a performance-oriented manner to allow
the employer to train workers in the most efficient and feasible manner
for his or her shipyard employment environment. The hazards associated
with each type of cargo must be taken into consideration. For example,
repairing chemical barges has been concentrated in the Gulf and the
inland waters of the Gulf. Therefore, fire watches in the Gulf area
would likely be trained to deal with fires involving chemicals that are
shipped by barge. Another consideration is the regional difference in
temperatures that could affect the ignition and spread of fire. OSHA
agrees with the Committee that individual employers are best suited to
develop their fire watch training geared to specific shipyard
employment operations.
In paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of Sec. 1915.508, based on the Committee's
recommendation, the Agency proposes that the employer must retrain fire
watches annually. The Committee recognized fire watches as the first
line of defense against the spread of fire, as discussed above under
paragraph (c)(1) of Sec. 1915.504. Annual training is an industry
practice. In addition, according to the Committee, annual training is
required on Navy contracts throughout the country, and it is not viewed
as an additional requirement burden.
In paragraph (c)(2) of Sec. 1915.508, the Agency proposes that
each employee who stands a fire watch duty be trained. The training
would include how to anticipate and be aware of the hazards that may be
faced while performing fire watch duties. Such hazards may include
limited egress or possible changes in atmospheric conditions. For the
training requirement for fire watches to recognize the adverse health
effects that may be caused by the exposure to fire, the Committee noted
that workers have to be familiar with the OSHA standard for Hazard
Communication, 29 CFR 1910.1200, and its requirements related to the
products the workers are using in their work and the Material Safety
Data Sheets (MSDSs) for those products, and where appropriate, for the
last three
[[Page 76239]]
products carried in this space or the coatings that were applied to the
steel before hot work. It was explained to the committee that workers
exposed to hazardous chemicals are already covered by the OSHA Hazard
Communication standard. The Committee noted that the workers need to be
knowledgeable about fire prevention practices so they can correctly
react to changes in the hot work area environment that introduce
hazards not identified at the start of hot work. Examples are
deterioration of housekeeping or introduction of combustible or
flammable materials.
Paragraph (c)(2)(i) of Sec. 1915.508 requires the employer to
train a fire watch on the basics of fire behavior, the classes of
fires, extinguishing agents and stages of fire, and methods of
extinguishment. The basics of fire behavior usually include the
definition of the fire triangle and tetrahedron as set forth by NFPA
1001-1997--Standard for Fire Fighter Professional Qualification (Ex.
19-25). Extinguishing agents commonly used in shipyard employment are
dry chemical, water, and CO2. Methods of extinguishing
require removing one or more of the following: heat (ignition), oxygen,
fuel, or chemical chain reactions. Members of the Committee suggested
that the selection of a fire extinguisher used on certain materials
may, in fact, present a hazard in itself. Even though the worker is
trained to be able to identify, select, and use the appropriate
extinguishing agent, such training does not relieve the employer from
the responsibility to assess the hot work area hazards and make the
correct extinguishing agents available. The Committee noted that
particular extinguishing agents may vary and that in some yards,
according to one employer, workers are forbidden to use CO2
extinguishers in confined spaces.
The Committee raised a number of issues when reviewing paragraph
(c)(2)(ii) of Sec. 915.508 Training Requirements For Fire Watch Duty.
One issue discussed was whether the employer should require live fire
training for all fire watches. The Committee found that there were
different requirements and restrictions across the country. Some
members thought that how fire watch personnel are trained should be
left up to the yard and not this Committee. Others stated that the only
way a fire watch can learn the proper procedure is for that individual
to have hands-on training on attacking a fire. One member stated that
classroom training is the only way he could train employees because of
his state's strict emissions standards. Another member stated that
although the State of California has a ban on open-burning, the
Department of Air Quality for the State of California does issue an
annual permit for open fire burning for this type of training. Some
members stated that the only way to train employees on how to properly
use a fire extinguisher or fire hose is to put the trainees in a
realistic situation. The training exercise would be a controlled burn
and would teach the trainee the proper way to approach the fire.
Initially, the Committee could not reach a full consensus on the issue
of live versus classroom (lecture/video) training. During
deliberations, one committee member from a large shipyard located on
the Gulf Coast had not considered live-fire training but was persuaded
by the discussion and is currently building a facility within the
shipyard to perform this training. The Committee noted that there are
various apparatuses available for live fire training that are either
fabricated within the shipyard or commercially available. After lengthy
discussions, a recommendation was unanimously agreed upon by the
Committee and added by OSHA as proposed Sec. 1915.508(c)(2)(ii). In
this paragraph, the employer must ensure that each fire watch is
trained using live fire scenarios whenever allowed by law.
Paragraphs (c)(2)(iii), (iv), and (v) propose, respectively, that
employees who stand fire watch duty must be able to recognize the
adverse health effects that may be caused by exposure to fire; be
familiar with the physical characteristics of the hot work area; and be
able to anticipate and understand the hazards associated with fire
watch duties.
Paragraphs (c)(2) (vi) and (vii) of Sec. 1915.508 require training
on personal protective equipment (PPE), including what PPE is
appropriate in a particular situation, as well as how to use it. The
Committee noted that a fire watch may need the same or different items
of PPE, and even PPE providing a different level of protection, from
that used by a hot worker. The Committee further pointed out that the
fire watch(es) could be assigned to an isolated or confined space and,
therefore, would need the additional protection that is required under
other sections of part 1915.
Paragraph (c)(2)(viii) of Sec. 1915.508 proposes that an employee
who stands fire watch duty must be trained to be able to select and
operate fire extinguishers and fire hoses likely to be used. As in the
case of fire extinguishers, whenever a fire watch may be expected to
use a fire hose, the fire watch must be trained in its use. The
Committee noted that fire hoses 1\1/2\-inches in diameter are used by
fire watches in some yards but not in others. For example, a Marine
Chemist's instructions on a certificate may specify that a fire watch
be placed inside a tank with a charged 1\1/2\-inch fire hose. A fire
watch who has been trained with a fire extinguisher does not
necessarily understand how to use a 1\1/2\ inch fire hose. The
Committee strongly recommended, and OSHA agrees, that fire watches need
particular training if they must deal with this equipment within their
shipyard employment.
The Agency proposes that a fire watch be trained to select and
operate the different types of fire extinguishers and 1\1/2\-inch fire
hoses likely to be used by fire watches in the area. In paragraphs
(g)(1) and (g)(2) of 29 CFR 1910.157, OSHA requires the employer to
train any employee who has been designated to use portable fire
extinguishers or, as proposed in paragraph (c)(2)(viii) of this
section, fire hose, and to be familiar with the general principles of
fire extinguisher use and the hazards of fighting incipient stage
fires. Again, OSHA does not believe that adopting this training
requirement from part 1910 imposes any new burden on shipyard employers
than what currently exists.
Paragraph (c)(2)(ix) of Sec. 1915.508 states that fire watch
personnel be trained to be aware of the location and use of barriers
that are part of the employer's fire protection program. Throughout the
maritime industry, where partial cleaning has been performed, barriers
are placed to ensure that product is not returned to the hot work area.
Barriers are also used to contain molten metal or sparks from traveling
to unclean areas. However, the Committee recognized that barriers can
create hazards by blocking an employee's egress or by suppressing
ventilation to the point where fumes or vapors can accumulate. A worker
who stands fire watch must understand how barriers are used. OSHA is
recommending that this provision be included in the training of fire
watch personnel.
In paragraph (c)(2)(x) of Sec. 1915.508, OSHA proposes to require
that the fire watch be trained in the means of communicating with each
worker performing hot work. There was considerable discussion within
the Committee workgroup about current industry practices for the fire
watch's contact with other workers. One member suggested OSHA
incorporate NAVSEA's 009-07 Fire Prevention and Housekeeping (September
13, 1996). However, other workgroup members pointed out that this Navy
Standard
[[Page 76240]]
Item was written primarily to protect property and that only the parts
that addressed the safety of workers would be appropriate for the OSHA
proposal. Therefore, the workgroup committee took only certain
provisions relating to the safety of workers, including the requirement
that the fire watches have a clear view and immediate access to the
areas they are watching, from NAVSEA 009-07. However, the workgroup
decided that requiring a clear view and access would not adequately
protect workers, without also requiring a means of communication
between the fire watch and the hot worker. As one member pointed out,
communication is important because a fire watch may not be able to see
a hot worker when, for example, the fire watch is on the other side of
a compartment from the hot worker. In this case, the means may be as
simple as tapping on the bulkhead to signal whether the hot worker can
continue or must stop, or an electronic communication system such as a
two-way radio. The phrase, ``with a clear view and immediate access to
the area(s) affected by the hot work,'' was eventually dropped from the
training requirements, but substantively added to the duty requirement
in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of 1915.504 Fire Watches.
In paragraphs (c)(2)(xi) and (xii) of Sec. 1915.508, OSHA proposes
to require that fire watches be trained to know when and how to
initiate fire alarm procedures and to be familiar with the shipyard's
evacuation plan. OSHA recognizes that fire watch work assignments may
change from vessel or vessel sections to a land side facility and that
each may have different alarm systems, evacuation plans, and exit
routes. For example, the alarm/evacuation systems found in vessels vary
significantly among vessels types. The alarm system installed and
procedures established on an oiler are far more sophisticated from
those found on a VLCC (very large crude carrier). Evacuation procedures
and alarm systems will be different in a land side paint facility or
machine shop where flammable coatings or cutting oils pose a hazard.
However, the Committee concluded that regardless of the system, a
primary responsibility of a fire watch must be to recognize when to
initiate a fire alarm procedure and begin evacuation. A fire watch
needs to know when a fire has progressed beyond the incipient stage,
when a fire alarm should be activated, and when evacuation should be
initiated. The Committee decided and OSHA agrees not to specify a
particular type of alarm system. Both noted that the employers are in
the best position to develop their own alarm systems but that fire
watches need to be familiar with what the employer has developed or
what is already in place in the case of a ship or barge. For example, a
yard in the southern area of California could have a Navy vessel, a
cruise liner, and a tug under repair at the same time, all with
different alarm systems. OSHA believes that the employer must make sure
that fire watches are familiar with the type of alarm systems being
used on the vessel where they are working. Obviously, if assigned to
all three vessels, the fire watch must be familiar with each particular
alarm and evacuation scenario.
Paragraph (c)(3) of Sec. 1915.508 continues with fire watch
personnel training, specifically, the employer must ensure that each
fire watch is trained to alert others to exit the work area whenever:
(i) The fire watch perceives an unsafe condition associated with hot
work; (ii) the fire watch perceives that a hot worker is in danger;
(iii) evacuation is ordered by the employer or designated
representative; or (iv) an evacuation signal such as an alarm is
activated. A labor union committee member requested that language be
added as item (i) to address a situation where an employee perceives an
unsafe condition either before beginning work when originally surveying
the work area or perhaps when changes in conditions occur during work.
The employee should be trained to report the unsafe conditions. The
Committee agreed to recommend this requirement.
In shipyard employment, some employers hire contract workers as
needed for the sole purpose of fire watch. The employer is ultimately
responsible for ensuring that these fire watches are appropriately
trained as proposed in Sec. 1915.508(c). One way to do this is for the
employer to have a written evaluation of the contractor's training
program that the employer could review and thereby ensure compliance
with the OSHA standard. Again, OSHA wants to make clear that it is the
employer's responsibility to make sure that all fire watches are
properly trained.
In paragraph (d) of Sec. 1915.508, OSHA proposes that the employer
document that the training required by paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) has
been accomplished.
In paragraph (d)(1) of Sec. 1915.508, OSHA proposes to require
that the employer document the worker's training by keeping a record of
the worker's name, the name of the trainer, the type of training, and
the date(s) of the training.
In addition, OSHA proposes in paragraph (d)(2) of Sec. 1915.508
that the employer keep the documentation for at least one year, and,
consistent with other OSHA standards, the record must be available for
inspection and copying by OSHA personnel on request.
These requirements were fully supported by the members of this
Committee. Representatives of management, labor, government, and
professional organizations agreed that a training record, because it
represents assurance that the worker standing fire watch has been
trained, is essential to the safety of the fire watch, the worker doing
hot work, and other personnel in the area. Despite the trend toward
less recordkeeping, employer representatives believed that making and
keeping the training record would not be burdensome and that any
resources needed to comply with the recordkeeping would be well spent.
Several members noted that fire watch was a very important duty that
must be performed by trained personnel. A written record was necessary
so that the employer and the workers would be able to find out that the
fire watch had been trained and when the training occurred.
The record that must be kept is minimal and need contain only the
worker's name, the name of the trainer, the type of training, and the
date(s) of the training. It can be kept as part of the worker's
personnel file, in a master file of training, or in any other format
the employer chooses. A record in an electronic file or database is
sufficient. However, regardless of how the record is kept, it must be
available for inspection by the persons authorized to see it. To be
available means that it can be easily found, so the employer must first
decide how the record is to be kept, and then make certain there is
access to it, possibly requiring a note or index pointing the searcher
toward the information.
The record must be kept until it is replaced by the worker's new
training record or for one year from when the record was made in the
case of a worker who leaves the workplace or whose duties no longer
include fire watch. Representatives of shipyard employers stated that
there was no reason to keep records longer. The only important
information in the record was that the training had occurred within the
required time frame, the type of training, when the training was
carried out, and who had given it. For the worker who is separated from
the shipyard, OSHA is proposing to require the employer to keep the
record for one year from the time it was made. Even
[[Page 76241]]
after a worker is no longer a fire watch, the information may be
relevant to determining whether the employer's fire watch training
program was adequate and for research on the effectiveness of the
standard. In addition, the employee or worker representative may need
this time to access the records.
OSHA seeks comment on whether the requirement for training record
retention should be one or three years.
Section 1915.509 Definitions
OSHA proposes in Sec. 1915.509 to define the terms that OSHA uses
in this proposed subpart. Words that OSHA uses only in this subpart
that require a definition are included. Terms that OSHA uses in other
subparts of part 1915 Occupational Safety and Health Standards for
Shipyard Employment, are also included in this section until a new
definition section for all of part 1915 is established. At that time,
all of the definitions in part 1915 will be combined into one section.
The Committee believed that it was necessary to propose these
definitions at this time so that readers would understand the proposed
regulations clearly.
The Committee formed a work group to develop the definitions for
the terms they believed needed to be defined. The work group first met
during the July 1997, meeting in Baltimore, MD. The discussion that
follows explains the key definitions the work group developed. Not all
of the definitions that OSHA proposes in this subpart are discussed.
OSHA believes some of the terms have been long understood by employees
and employers. However, OSHA encourages the public to comment on any of
the definitions.
The Committee agreed that the following terms used in this subpart
have definitions that are the same or similar to the definitions found
in either parts 1915 or 1910. Therefore, OSHA is not discussing them at
this time. These terms are: ``confined space'; ``dangerous atmosphere''
(see 29 CFR 1915.11); ``flammable liquid'' (29 CFR 1910.106);
``incipient stage fire'' (29 CFR 1910.155 (c)(26)); and ``hot work''
(29 CFR 1915.11).
The Committee proposed to define the term ``designated areas'' as
an area established for hot work after an assessment of fire hazard
potential of facilities, vessels, or vessel sections. The Committee
discussed and came to agreement on this definition during the meeting
held in Houston, Texas, in February 2002.
OSHA proposes to define the term ``contract employer'' as an
employer who performs work for a host employer at the host employer's
workplace. The Committee discussed and agreed that this definition is
not intended to include employers who provide incidental services that
do not directly influence shipyard employment (e.g., mail delivery or
office supply services). There are several employee populations that
may visit the shipyard for brief periods of time and who have only
incidental levels of exposure to hazards that other contract employees
may have. The Committee did not want to regulate these populations.
The Committee developed the definition for ``fire response
employee'' based upon the definitions used by NFPA in NFPA 1500-2002
and by OSHA in 29 CFR 1910.156, Fire Brigades. OSHA proposes to define
the term ``fire response employee'' as a shipyard employee who carries
out duties and responsibilities of shipyard firefighting in accordance
with the fire safety plan. A fire response employee may be a full-time
employee, may occupy any position or rank within the shipyard, and may
engage in fire emergency operations.
The Committee adapted the definition for ``fixed extinguishing
system'' from the current definition in 29 CFR 1910.155. The Committee
discussed and changed the definition because they believed it did not
adequately define systems used both in land side facilities and aboard
vessels and vessel sections where components may be remotely located
from the space where the system will discharge. OSHA is proposing to
change the definition to encompass all parts of a fixed extinguishing
system regardless of location.
The Committee adapted the definition for ``physically isolated''
from three sources: A proposed change to NFPA 12-2000, Carbon Dioxide
Extinguishing Systems (Ex. 20-21); from Coast Guard guidance published
in COMDTINST 16000.7, Marine Safety Manual, Volume II, Material
Inspection; and from Coast Guard recommendations published in the
March/April, 1996, NFPA Journal. (Ex. 20-26). In discussing and
developing this definition, the Committee considered the different
types of fixed extinguishing systems, including two-phase gaseous/
liquid type high pressure systems where the extinguishing agent is
stored in cylinders, and low-pressure systems where the agents are
refrigerated and stored in large pressure vessels.
OSHA believes that all of the other definitions proposed in this
section are ``terms of the industry'' that are universally recognized
by shipyard employees and employers. OSHA welcomes comment or questions
submitted to the record about definitions for these terms.
V. Summary of the Preliminary Economic and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Screening Analyses
Introduction
OSHA has determined that this proposal is a not economically
significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and not a major rule
under the Congressional Review provisions of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. Because this rule has been listed
as significant for other reasons in the Regulatory Agenda, OSHA has
provided the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs with an
assessment of the costs, benefits and alternatives, as required by
section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866, which is summarized below.
Executive Order (EO) 12866 requires regulatory agencies to conduct
an economic analysis for rules that meet certain criteria. The most
frequently used criterion under EO 12866 is that the rule will impose
annual costs on the economy of $100 million or more. Neither the
benefits nor the costs of this rule exceed $100 million.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended in 1996,
requires OSHA to determine whether the Agency's regulatory actions will
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Making such a determination for this proposal required OSHA to perform
a screening analysis to identify any such impacts. OSHA's screening
analysis indicated that the proposed rule will not have significant
impacts on a substantial number of small entities.
OSHA's Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA) and initial regulatory
flexibility screening analysis include: A description of the industries
potentially affected by the standard; an evaluation of the risks
addressed; an assessment of the benefits attributable to the proposed
standard; a determination of the technological feasibility of the
requirements of the standard; an estimate of the costs employers will
incur to comply with the standard; a determination of the economic
feasibility of compliance with the standard; and an analysis of the
economic and other impacts associated with this rulemaking, including
those on small businesses. The PEA has been provided to the docket as
(Ex. 15) This section of the preamble summarizes the results of that
analysis.
Affected Industries
The proposed Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment standard will
[[Page 76242]]
affect all establishments in the ship building, ship breaking and
repair industry. These include large shipyards, government shipyards
and shipyards operated under Navy contracts, operations owning a dock
or drydock, and the vast majority of small firms that perform
shipbuilding and repair work, such as metal fabricators, painters,
asbestos removal, etc., who do not own or rent docks. For purposes of
this analysis OSHA has defined small firms as: (1) Firms with fewer
than 1,000 employees (the SBA definition of small businesses in this
sector); (2) firms with fewer than 250 employees (the definition of
small business recommended by the negotiated rulemaking committee); and
(3) firms with fewer than 20 employees. OSHA has based its estimates of
number of firms, establishments, employment and wages on general BLS
and Department of Commerce data for the standard industrial
classification (SIC) codes for ship building 3731 and ship breaking
4499. OSHA has based its estimates concerning revenues of firms on SBA
data, and concerning profit rates on Robert Morris Associates data.
Table V-1 shows the total number of establishments, number of firms,
employment, and revenues and profits per firm affected by the rule. As
the table shows there are 717 establishments owned by 669 firms in the
industries. The industries employ 97,822 workers, of whom 70 percent
are production employees.
Table V-1.--Industrial Profile of Employees and Establishments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entire
Industry characteristic 1-19 Employees 1-250 1-1,000 1,000 affected
Employees Employees Employees industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Establishments.......... 412 621 697 20 717
Total Firms................... 412 607 660 9 669
Employees..................... 2,305 14,774 39,063 58,759 97,822
Revenues Per Firm ($1,000's).. $653 $2,353 $5,907 $718,166 $15,540
Profits Per Firm ($1,000)..... $24 $85 $213 $25,854 $559
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA.
Evaluation of Risk and Potential Benefits
For this Preliminary Economic Analysis, OSHA developed a profile of
the risks facing workers in shipyards that might be affected by the
standard. OSHA's risk profile for exposure to fire based risks in
shipyards is based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics'
National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, data from the Bureau's
Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, and an analysis of OSHA
fatality/catastrophe inspection data obtained from the Agency's
Integrated Management Information System.
OSHA anticipates that the proposed standard will significantly
reduce the number of fire and explosion related incidents and resulting
injuries and fatalities currently reported in the shipyard industry.
OSHA believes that the proposed standard's requirements for inspection
prior to hot work, fire watches, planning and training will help to
save lives and prevent injuries in the shipyard workforce. OSHA
estimates that approximately 1 fatality, 110 injuries involving days
away from work and 204 injuries not involving days away from work occur
annually among shipyard workers due to fire and explosions; this is the
current industry risk baseline used in this analysis. OSHA projects
that full compliance with the proposed standard would annually prevent
0.88 fatalities, 102 of these injuries involving days away from work,
and 190 of the injuries not involving days away from work.
In addition to saving lives and improving overall safety in
shipyards, OSHA believes that full compliance with the proposed
standard would yield substantial cost savings to parties within and
connected with the industry and ultimately to society as a whole. These
monetized benefits take the form of reductions in employer and insurer
accident-related costs in several areas: Value of lost output
associated with temporary total disabilities and permanent partial
disabilities, an income-based measure derived from estimates of
workers' compensation indemnity payments; reductions in accident-
related medical costs; administrative expenses incurred by workers'
compensation insurers; and indirect costs related to productivity
losses, work stoppages, and accident investigations and reports.
Applying data from the construction and insurance industries on the
direct costs of accidents and data from the literature on the indirect
costs of accidents and other administrative-related costs to OSHA's
preliminary estimate of avoided injuries, the Agency monetized the
value of the cost savings employers and society will accrue by avoiding
these injuries. OSHA estimates that annual costs savings of $6.2
million will result from compliance with the proposed rule. These
savings are those associated with injuries due to fires. OSHA did not
attempt to quantify the cost savings resulting from reduced fire damage
to property and reduced need to respond to fires.
Thus, OSHA estimates that the proposed standard will prevent 292
injuries and one death per year. As a result of prevention of the
injuries, OSHA estimates that there will be direct cost savings of $6.2
million per year, excluding savings associated with reduced property
damage and reduced fire response costs.
Only some of these direct cost savings accrue directly to employers
in the form of reduced workers' compensation payments and
administrative cost. Other cost savings represent increased income to
employees and greater tax collections by the government. Even the
portion of direct cost savings that accrue directly to employers may
not be a saving to the employer of the injured employee because of the
risk spreading effects of workers' compensation insurance. The issue of
the extent to which the direct cost savings are an economic motivation
for employers is discussed in detail in the final chapter of the
Preliminary Economic and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Screening
Analysis.
Technological Feasibility and Compliance Costs
Consistent with the legal framework established by the OSH Act,
Executive Order 12866 and court decisions, OSHA has assessed the
technological feasibility of the proposed fire protection in shipyards
standard. The standard does not require any practices not already
undertaken in many shipyards today. Moreover, the proposed standard is
based on a consensus draft recommended to the Agency by a negotiated
rulemaking committee consisting of representatives from labor,
government, industry in particular divergent industry interests,
including small employers, who would
[[Page 76243]]
be affected by any changes to the maritime regulations. The committee
reached consensus on the language of the draft, thereby implicitly
acknowledging the feasibility of the proposed revisions to the
standard. Therefore, based on the fact that many firms in the industry
are already implementing the controls and practices required by the
proposed standard and that the negotiated rulemaking committee reached
consensus on the draft underlying the proposed revisions, OSHA has
preliminarily determined that the proposed fire protection in shipyards
standard is technologically feasible.
OSHA developed estimates of the costs of compliance for shipyard
employers subject to the proposed standard. To develop these estimates
OSHA first examined the extent to which shipyard employers were already
in compliance with the requirements of the standard as a result of
existing OSHA requirements, compliance with rules of other parties
(such as the U.S. Navy in some shipyards) and compliance with voluntary
codes and good practices. Eliminating provisions for which there is
already substantial compliance, OSHA arrived at the list of activities
for which shipyard employers would incur costs shown in Table V-2.
Table V-2 shows that the annualized costs of the proposed standard are
$4.3 million per year. Ninety-one percent of the costs are associated
with fire watch-related provisions; most of these costs are for posting
additional fire watch personnel in situations in which fire watches are
not currently being posted.
Table V-2. Total Annualized Compliance Cost per Requirement for the
Proposed Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized
Requirement cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posting Fire Watches.................................... $3,789,057
Safe Work Practices..................................... 245,839
Fire Watch Written Program.............................. 36,546
Fire Response Policy.................................... 11,630
Fire Safety Plan........................................ 36,546
Fire Watch Training..................................... 95,204
Fire Safety Plan Review/General Training................ 37,327
Fire Protection Systems Training........................ 9,642
Fire Response Training.................................. 49,430
---------------
Total................................................. 4,261,222
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numbers do not total due to rounding.
Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA.
Economic Impacts
OSHA analyzed the impacts of these compliance costs on firms in the
shipbuilding sector. In order to do this, OSHA determined costs as a
percentage of revenues and costs as a percentage of profits. These two
measures (in percent) correspond to two assumptions used by economists
to bound the range of possible impacts: the assumption of no-cost pass-
through, i.e., that employers will be unable to pass any of the costs
of compliance forward to their customers (compliance costs as a
percentage of profits), and the assumption of full-cost pass-through
(compliance costs as a percentage of revenues), i.e., that employers
will be able to pass all of the costs of compliance forward to their
customers. As summarized in Table V-3, below, OSHA estimates that, if
affected firms in the ship building sector were forced to absorb these
compliance costs entirely from profits (a highly unlikely scenario),
profits would be reduced by an average of 1.14 percent. If, at the
other extreme, affected firms were able to pass all of these compliance
costs forward to their customers, OSHA projects that the price
(revenue) increase required to pay for these costs would be less than
0.1 percent (0.04 percent). Given the minimal impact on both prices and
profits, OSHA preliminarily concludes that the regulation is
economically feasible.
Table V-3. Economic Impacts for the Proposed Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Compliance
costs as a costs as a
Firm size percentage percentage
of revenues of profits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Firms..................................... 0.04 1.14
1-19 Employees................................ 0.11 3.09
1-250 employees............................... 0.07 1.83
1-1000 Employees (SBA Definition)............. 0.06 1.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA.
Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended in 1996 (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), requires regulatory agencies to determine whether
regulatory actions will adversely affect small entities. The Small
Business Administration (SBA) defines small entities, or ``concerns,''
in terms of number of employees or annual receipts. For employers in
SIC 3731, small firms are defined by SBA as those with less than 1,000
employees. As shown in Table VI-3, for firms with less than 1,000
employees, costs are 1.61 percent of profits and 0.06 percent of
revenues. OSHA also examined costs as a percentage of profits and
revenues for firms with less than 250 employees, as recommended by the
negotiated rulemaking committee, and for firms with less than 20
employees to see whether there might be significant impacts on the very
smallest firms. For firms with less than 250 employees, costs were 1.83
percent of profits and 0.07 percent of revenues. For firms with less
than 20 employees, costs were 3.09 percent of profits and 0.11 percent
of revenues.
A major source of these disparate impacts is lower levels of
baseline compliance by small firms. Although the economic impacts on
the smallest size class of employers are low, they are somewhat higher
than for larger employers. The Agency is interested in hearing from
smaller employers about disparate impacts on small employers. Do small
employers believe there will be a greater impact on them than on larger
employers? Is there a way to reduce these impacts?
OSHA has set the criteria that if costs exceed one percent of
revenues or five percent of profits, then the impact on small entities
is considered significant for purposes of complying with the RFA. For
all of the classes of affected small firms in the shipbuilding and
repair and shipbreaking sectors, costs were less than one percent of
revenues and five percent of profits. OSHA therefore certifies that
this regulation will not have an economically significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
VI. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The proposed rule for Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment
contains several collections of information (paperwork) requirements
that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., and its regulation at 5 CFR 1320. OMB is currently reviewing
OSHA's request for approval of the proposed collections. OSHA solicits
comments on the collection of information requirements and the
estimated burden hours associated with these collections, including
comment on the following:
[sbull] Whether the proposed information-collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
[sbull] The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information-collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
[[Page 76244]]
[sbull] The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
[sbull] Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information-
collection and -transmission techniques.
OSHA estimates the total burden hours associated with all of the
collection of information requirements at 5,625 burden hours in the
first year and 5,241 burden hours in the second and subsequent years. A
collection of information is defined in PRA-95 to mean, ``the
obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the
disclosure to third parties or the public of facts or opinions by or
for an agency regardless of form or format.'' (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)).
Each of the collections is summarized below.
[sbull] 1915.501--General Provisions
Paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section requires the host employer on
multi-employer worksites to inform all employers (contract employers)
at the worksite about the content of the host employer's fire safety
plan.
Paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section requires that contract
employers make sure the host employer is aware of fire hazards
associated with the contract work and how the contract employer will
address those hazards. In addition, paragraph (d)(2)(ii) requires the
contract employer to identify hazards that arise during the course of
work that were not identified as part of the information transfer
required by paragraph (d)(2)(i) described above.
[sbull] 1915.502--Fire Safety Plan
Paragraph (a) of this section requires the employer to develop a
written fire safety program covering the elements listed in paragraph
(b), including the following information:
(1) The identification of the significant potential fire risks;
(2) Procedures for recognizing and reporting unsafe conditions;
(3) Alarm procedures;
(4) Procedures for notifying employees of a fire emergency;
(5) Procedures for notifying fire response organizations of a fire
emergency;
(6) Procedures for evacuation;
(7) Procedures to account for all employees after an evacuation;
and
(8) Names, job titles, or department for individuals who can be
contacted for further information about the plan.
Paragraph (c) requires the employer to review the fire safety plan
with each affected employee at the following times:
(1) Within 90 days of the effective date of the standard;
(2) Upon initial assignment for new employees; and
(3) When there is a change in the plan or a change of the
employee's duties.
Paragraph (d) specifies the following:
(1) The plan be kept accessible to employees, employer
representatives, and to OSHA;
(2) The plan be updated when necessary, but no less than annually;
(3) The employer certify in writing that each employee was informed
about the plan; and
(4) A copy of the plan be given to outside fire response
organizations who may be expected to respond to fires at the employer's
worksite.
[sbull] 1915.504--Fire Watches
Paragraph (a) requires the employer to prepare and keep current, a
written policy specifying the following information:
(1) The training employees must be given;
(2) The duties employees are to perform;
(3) The equipment employees must be given; and
(4) The personal protective equipment (PPE) employees must be given
as required in 29 CFR part 1915, subpart I, Personal Protective
Equipment.
[sbull] 1915.505--Fire Response
Paragraph (a)(2) requires employers to create, maintain, and update
a written statement or policy that describes the internal and outside
fire response organizations that the employer will use.
Paragraph (b)(1) lists the information to be included in the
statement or policy if internal fire response is to be used. The
information includes the following:
(1) The basic structure of the fire response organization;
(2) The number of trained fire response employees;
(3) The fire response functions that may need to be carried out;
(4) The minimum number of fire response employees necessary, the
number and types of apparatus, and a description of the fire
suppression operations established by written standard operating
procedures for each type of fire response at the employer's facility;
(5) The type, amount, and frequency of training that must be given
to fire response employees; and
(6) The procedure for use of protective clothing and equipment.
Paragraph (b)(2) lists the information to be included in the
statement or policy if outside fire response is to be used. The
information includes the following:
(1) The types of fire suppression incidents to which the fire
response organization is expected to respond at the employer's facility
or worksite;
(2) The liaisons between the employer and the outside fire response
organization; and
(3) A plan for fire response functions that:
(A) Addresses procedures for obtaining assistance from other fire
response organizations;
(B) Familiarizes the outside fire response organization with the
layout of the employer's facility or worksite, including access routes
to controlled areas, and site-specific operations, occupancies, vessels
or vessel sections, and hazards;
(C) Sets forth how hose and coupling connection threads are to be
made compatible and includes where the adapter couplings are kept; or
(D) States that the employer will not allow the use of incompatible
hose connections.
Paragraph (b)(3) lists the information to be included in the
statement or policy where a combination of internal and outside fire
response is to be used. The information includes all the information
from paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) as listed above and the following
information:
(1) The basic organizational structure of the combined fire
response;
(2) The number of combined trained fire responders;
(3) The fire response functions that need to be carried out;
(4) The minimum number of fire response employees necessary, the
number and types of apparatus, and a description of the fire
suppression operations established by written standard operating
procedures for each particular type of fire response at the worksite;
and,
(5) The type, amount, and frequency of joint training that must be
given to fire response employees.
Paragraph (a)(3) requires employers to create, maintain, and update
a written statement or policy that defines the evacuation procedures
employees must follow, if the employer chooses to require a total or
partial evacuation of the worksite at the time of a fire. Paragraph
(b)(4) prescribes the employee evacuation information that must be
included in the employer's policy statement required by (a)(3). That
information includes the following:
(1) Emergency escape procedures;
(2) Procedures to be followed by employees who may remain longer at
the worksite to perform critical shipyard employment operations during
the evacuation;
(3) Procedures to account for all employees after emergency
evacuation is completed;
[[Page 76245]]
(4) The preferred means of reporting fires and other emergencies;
and
(5) Names or job titles of the employees or departments to be
contacted for further information or explanation of duties.
Paragraph (b)(5) prescribes the rescue and emergency response
information that must also be included in the employer's policy
statement required in paragraph (a)(3). That information includes the
following:
(1) A description of the emergency rescue procedures; and
(2) Names or job titles of the employees who are assigned to
perform them.
Paragraph (c)(2) requires that fire response employees who are
required to wear respirators meet the medical requirements of the
Respiratory Protection Program Standard in 1915.154. The paperwork
burden for the respiratory protection requirements has been approved
under OMB Control Number 1218-0099.
Paragraph (c)(3) requires annual medical exams for all fire
response employees. There is no burden or cost for these medical exams
because all employees affected, as a usual and customary practice, are
now receiving the medical exams.
Paragraph (c)(5) requires that the medical records of fire response
employees be kept as required in 1915.1020. The paperwork burden for
access to medical records is approved under OMB Control Number 1218-
0065.
Paragraph (d)(2) requires the employer to set up written:
(1) Administrative regulations;
(2) Operating procedures; and
(3) Departmental orders for fire response functions
Paragraph (d)(3) requires the employer to set up an incident
management system (IMS) to coordinate and direct fire response
functions, including the following:
(1) Specific fire emergency responsibilities;
(2) Accountability for all fire response employees participating in
an emergency operation; and,
(3) Resources offered by outside organizations.
Paragraph (d)(4) requires the employer to provide the information
[required by (d)(2) and (d)(3)] to the outside fire response
organization to be used.
[sbull] 1915.506--Hazards of Fixed Extinguishing Systems on Board
Vessels and Vessel Sections
Paragraph (b)(2) requires certain employers (those who have
employees exposed to fixed extinguishing systems that could create a
hazardous atmosphere when activated aboard vessels and vessel sections)
to ensure that employees are trained to recognize systems discharge and
evacuation alarms and to recognize the appropriate escape routes.
[sbull] 1915.507--Landside Fire Protection Systems
Paragraph (c)(2) requires employers to notify employees and take
the necessary precautions to make sure employees are safe from fire if
for any reason a fire extinguishing system stops working, until the
system is working again.
Paragraph (c)(5) requires the employer to post hazard warning or
caution signs at both the entrances to and inside of areas protected by
fixed extinguishing systems that use extinguishing agents in
concentrations known to be hazardous to employee safety or health.
[sbull] 1915.508--Training
Paragraph (a) of this section requires the employer to train
affected employees when they first start working and also when
necessary to maintain proficiency in the five specific areas listed in
paragraph (a)(1) to (a)(5).
Paragraph (b) of this section specifies the training requirements
for employees designated to perform fire response activities.
Paragraph (b)(1) requires the employer to have a written training
policy stating that fire response employees are to be trained and
capable of carrying out their duties and responsibilities at all times.
Because OSHA specifies the wording for the training policy, there is no
burden associated with this collection of information requirement.
Paragraph (b)(2) requires the employer to keep written standard
operating procedures that address anticipated emergency operations and
to update these procedures as necessary. Note that operating procedures
are also required in 1915.505(d)(2).
Paragraph (b)(4) requires the employer to provide training for fire
response employees that ensures they are capable of carrying out their
duties and responsibilities under the employer's standard operating
procedures (see (b)(2) above).
Paragraph (b)(5) requires employers to train new fire response
employees before they engage in emergency operations and paragraph
(b)(6) requires employers to train fire response employees who are
expected to fight fires according to the written operating procedures
(see (b)(2) above) at least quarterly.
Paragraphs (b)(7) to (b)(10) specifies criteria for the instructors
and the training methods.
Paragraph (c) specifies requirements related to the training of
employees assigned to fire watch duty. Paragraph (c)(1)(i) to (iv)
specify the intervals of training, including:
(1) Before being assigned to fire watch duty;
(2) Whenever there is a change in operation that presents a new or
different hazards;
(3) Whenever the employer has reason to believe that the fire
watch's knowledge or understanding of the training previously provided
is inadequate; and,
(4) Re-training annually.
Paragraph (c)(2) specifies 12 areas on which the fire watch must be
trained.
Paragraph (c)(3) specifies 4 additional areas on which the fire
watch must be trained.
Paragraph (d) requires that employers keep records that demonstrate
that employees have been trained as required by paragraphs (a), (b),
and (c). The records must include the following information:
(1) The employee's name;
(2) The trainer's name;
(3) The types of training, and
(4) The date(s) on which the training took place.
Paragraph (d)(2) requires the employer to keep each training record
for one year from the time it was made or until it is replaced,
whichever is shorter, and to make it available for inspection and
copying by OSHA personnel on request.
OSHA will use the records developed in response to this Standard to
determine compliance with the safety and health provisions of the
Standard. The employer's failure to generate and disclose the
information required in this Standard will affect significantly OSHA's
effort to control and reduce injuries and fatalities related to fires
in shipyard employment.
Interested persons may submit comments regarding the burden
estimates or other aspects of this collection of information to the
OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. S-051, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210, and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room
10235, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 (Attn: OSHA Desk
Officer (RIN 1218-AB51)).
The complete Information Collection Request (ICR), including the
supporting
[[Page 76246]]
rationale is available for inspection and copying in the OSHA Docket
Office or the ICR can be mailed to persons who request a copy by
telephoning Todd Owen at (202) 693-1941 or Theda Kenney at (202) 693-
2044.
VII. Public Participation
Interested persons are requested to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning this proposal. These comments must be received by
March 11, 2003, and submitted in triplicate to the Docket Office;
Docket No. S-051, Room N2624, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration; 200 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20210.
All written comments received within the specified comment period
will be made a part of the record and will be available for public
inspection and copying at the above Docket Office address.
Additionally, under section 6(b)(3) of the OSH Act and 29 CFR
1911.11, interested persons may file objections to the proposal and
request an informal hearing. The objections and hearing requests should
be submitted in triplicate to the Docket office at the above address
and must comply with the following conditions:
1. The objection must include the name and address of the objector;
2. The objections must be received by March 11, 2003;
3. The objections must specify with particularity grounds upon
which the objection is based;
4. Each objection must be separately numbered; and
5. The objections must be accompanied by a detailed summary of the
evidence proposed to be adduced at the requested hearing.
Interested persons who have objections to various provisions or
have changes to recommend may, of course, make those objections and
their recommendations in their comments and OSHA will fully consider
them. There is only need to file formal ``objections'' separately if
the interested person requests a public hearing.
OSHA recognizes that there may be interested persons who, through
their knowledge of safety or their experience in the operations
involved, would wish to endorse or support certain provisions in the
standard. OSHA welcomes such supportive comments, including any
pertinent accident data or cost information that may be available, in
order that the record of this rulemaking will present a complete
picture of the public response on the issues involved.
VIII. State Plan Standards
This Federal Register document issues a proposal for new and
revised rules addressing fire protection in shipyard employment
regulated in 29 CFR 1915. The rules when final will be codified into
the applicable section of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The 26 states or U.S. Territories with their own OSHA approved
occupational safety and health plans must develop a comparable standard
applicable to both the private and public (state and local government
employees) sectors within six months of the publication date of a
permanent final Federal rule or show OSHA why there is no need for
action, e.g. because an existing state standard covering this area is
already ``at least as effective as'' the new Federal standard. Three
states and territories cover only the public sector (Connecticut, New
York, and New Jersey).
Currently five states (California, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont and
Washington) with their own state plans cover private sector onshore
maritime activities. Federal OSHA enforces maritime standards offshore
in all states and provides onshore coverage of maritime activities in
Federal OSHA states and in the following State Plan states: Alaska,
Arizona, Connecticut (plan covers only state and local government
employees), Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey (plan covers only state and local
government employees), New Mexico, New York (plan covers only state and
local government employees), North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, and
Wyoming. Until such time as a State standard is promulgated, Federal
OSHA will provide interim enforcement assistance, as appropriate, in
those States.
IX. Federalism
The standard has been reviewed in accordance with Executive order
13132 (64 FR 43255; August 10, 1999) regarding Federalism. This Order
requires that agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from limiting
State policy options, consult with States before taking any actions
that would restrict State policy options, and take such actions only
when there is clear constitutional authority and the presence of a
problem of national scope. The Order provides for preemption of State
law only if there is a clear Congressional intent for the agency to do
so. Any such preemption is to be limited to the extent possible.
Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act),
expresses Congress' clear intent to preempt State laws relating to
issues with respect to which Federal OSHA has promulgated occupational
safety or health standards. Under the OSH Act a State can avoid
preemption only if it submits, and obtains Federal approval of, a plan
for the development of such standards and their enforcement.
Occupational safety and health standards developed by such Plan-States
must, among other things, be at least as effective in providing safe
and healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal
standards.
The Federal standards on shipyard employment operations address
hazards which are not unique to any one state or region of the country.
Nonetheless, those States that have elected to participate under
section 18 of the OSH Act would not be preempted by this final
regulation and would be able to deal with special, local conditions
within the framework provided by this performance-oriented standard
while ensuring that their standards are at least as effective as the
Federal standard.
X. Unfunded Mandates
For the purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, as
well as Executive Order 12875, this rule does not include any federal
mandate that may result in increased expenditures by State, local, and
tribal governments, or increased expenditures by the private sector of
more than $100 million.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR 1915
Hazardous substances, Longshore and harbor workers, Occupational
safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and
Vessels.
XI. Authority and Signature
This document was prepared under the direction of John L. Henshaw,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210. The proposed sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Ocupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No 3-2000 (65 FR 50017); and 29 CFR part 1915.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 25th day of November 2002.
John L. Henshaw,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, OSHA proposes to amend
29 CFR chapter XVII as follows:
[[Page 76247]]
PART 1915--[AMENDED]
Subpart D--[Amended]
1. The authority citation for part 1915 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation
Act (33 U.S.C. 941); secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order
No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90
(55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), or 3-2000 (65 FR 50017) as
applicable.
Sec. 1915.52 [Removed]
Sec. 1915.55 [Amended]
2. Subpart D--Welding, Cutting and Heating of part 1915 is amended
by removing Sec. 1915.52, and by removing and reserving Sec.
1915.55(d),(f), and (g).
3. Part 1915 is amended by adding a new subpart, subpart P to read
as follows:
Subpart P--Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment.
Sec.
1915.501 General provisions.
1915.502 Fire safety plan.
1915.503 Precautions for hot work.
1915.504 Fire watches.
1915.505 Fire response.
1915.506 Hazards of fixed extinguishing systems on board vessels and
vessel sections.
1915.507 Land side fire protection systems.
1915.508 Training.
1915.509 Definitions applicable to this subpart.
Sec. 1915.501 General provisions.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of the standard in this subpart is to
require employers to protect all employees from fire hazards in
shipyard employment, including employees engaged in fire response
activities.
(b) Scope. This subpart covers employers with employees engaged in
shipyard employment aboard vessels, vessel sections, or on land side
operations regardless of geographic location.
(c) Employee participation. The employer must provide ways for
employees and employee representatives to participate in developing and
periodically reviewing programs and policies adopted to comply with
this subpart.
(d) Multi-employer worksites. (1) Host employer responsibilities.
The host employer's responsibilities are to:
(i) Inform all employers at the worksite about the content of the
fire safety plan including hazards, controls, fire safety and health
rules, emergency procedures; and
(ii) Make sure the safety and health responsibilities for fire
protection are assigned as appropriate to other employers at the
worksite.
(2) Contract employer responsibilities. The contract employer's
responsibilities are to:
(i) Make sure that the host employer knows about the fire related
hazards associated with the contract employer's work and what the
contract employer is doing to address them; and
(ii) Advise the host employer of any previously unidentified fire
related hazards that the contract employer identifies at the worksite.
Sec. 1915.502 Fire safety plan.
(a) Employer responsibilities. The employer must develop and
implement a written fire safety plan that covers all the actions that
employers and employees must take to ensure employee safety in the
event of a fire.
Note to paragraph (a): See appendix A to this subpart for a
Model Fire Safety Plan.
(b) Plan elements. The employer must include the following
information in the Fire Safety Plan:
(1) Identification of the significant potential fire risks;
(2) Procedures for recognizing and reporting unsafe conditions;
(3) Alarm procedures;
(4) Procedures for notifying employees of a fire emergency;
(5) Procedures for notifying fire response organizations of a fire
emergency;
(6) Procedures for evacuation;
(7) Procedures to account for all employees after an evacuation;
and
(8) Names, job titles, or departments for individuals who can be
contacted for further information about the plan.
(c) Reviewing the plan with employees. The employer must review the
plan with each affected employee at the following times:
(1) Within 90 days of the effective date of this subpart for
employees who are currently working;
(2) Upon initial assignment for new employees; and
(3) When the actions the employee must take under the plan change
because of a change in duties or a change in the plan.
(d) Additional employer requirements. The employer also must:
(1) Keep the plan accessible to employees, employee
representatives, and OSHA;
(2) Review and update the plan whenever necessary, but at least
annually;
(3) Certify in writing that each affected employee has been
informed about the plan as required by paragraph (c) of this section;
and
(4) Give a copy of the plan to any outside fire response
organization that the employer expects to respond to fires at the
employer's worksite, regardless of geographic location of that
worksite.
(e) Contract employers. Contract employers in shipyard employment
must have a fire safety plan for their employees, and this plan must
comply with the host employer's fire safety plan.
Sec. 1915.503 Precautions for hot work.
(a) General requirements--(1) Designated Areas. The employer may
only designate areas for hot work in sites such as vessels and vessel
section area, fabricating shops, and subassembly areas that do not
contain potential fire hazards.
(2) Non-designated Areas--(i) Before authorizing hot work, the
employer must visually inspect the area where hot work is to be
performed, including adjacent spaces, to identify potential fire
hazards, unless a Marine Chemist's certificate or shipyard Competent
Person's log is used for the authorization.
(ii) The employer shall authorize employees to perform hot work
only in areas that are free of fire hazards, or that have been
controlled by physical isolation, fire watches, or other positive
means.
Note to paragraph (a)(2): The requirements of this standard
apply to all hot work operations in shipyard employment except those
covered in subpart B of this part.
(b) Specific requirements--(1) Maintaining fire hazard-free
conditions. The employer must keep all hot work areas free of hazards
that may cause or contribute to the spread of fire.
Note to paragraph (b)(1): Unexpected energizing and energy
release are covered by 29 CFR 1915.181, subpart L. Exposure to toxic
and hazardous substances is covered in 29 CFR 1915.1000-1915.1450,
subpart Z.
(2) Fuel gas and oxygen supply lines and torches. The employer must
make sure that:
(i) No unattended fuel gas and oxygen hose lines or torches are in
confined spaces;
(ii) No unattended charged fuel gas and oxygen hose lines or
torches are in enclosed spaces for more than 15 minutes;
(iii) All fuel gas and oxygen hose lines are disconnected at the
supply manifold at the end of each shift; and
(A) All disconnected fuel gas and oxygen hose lines are rolled back
to the supply manifold or to open air to disconnect the torch; or
(B) Extended fuel gas and oxygen hose lines are not reconnected at
the supply
[[Page 76248]]
manifold unless the lines are given a positive means of identification
when they were first connected and a drop test is done using gauges or
other positive means to ensure the integrity of fuel gas and oxygen
burning system.
Sec. 1915.504 Fire watches.
(a) Written fire watch policy. The employer must create and keep
current a written policy that specifies the following requirements for
employees performing fire watch in the workplace:
(1) The training employees must be given;
(2) The duties employees are to perform;
(3) The equipment employees must be given; and
(4) The personal protective equipment (PPE) employees must be given
as required in 29 CFR Part 1915, subpart I.
(b) Posting fire watches. The employer must post a fire watch if
during hot work:
(1) Slag, weld splatter, or sparks might pass through an opening
and cause a fire;
(2) Fire-resistant guards or curtains are not used to prevent
ignition of combustible materials on or near decks, bulkheads,
partitions, or overheads;
(3) Combustible material closer than 35 ft. (10.7m) to the hot work
in either the horizontal or vertical direction cannot be removed,
protected with flame-proof covers, or otherwise shielded with metal or
fire-resistant guards or curtains, so that the material will not be
ignited by the hot work;
(4) On or near insulation, combustible coatings or sandwich-type
construction on either side cannot be shielded, cut back or removed, or
the space inerted;
(5) Combustible materials adjacent to the opposite sides of
bulkheads, decks, overheads, metal partitions, or of sandwich-type
construction may be ignited by conduction or radiation;
(6) The hot work is close enough to cause ignition through heat
radiation or conduction on the following:
(i) Insulated pipes, bulkheads, decks, partitions, or overheads; or
(ii) Combustible materials and/or coatings.
(7) The work is close enough to unprotected combustible pipe or
cable runs to cause ignition; or
(8) A Marine Chemist, a Coast Guard-authorized person, or a
shipyard Competent Person, as defined in 29 CFR part 1915, subpart B,
requires that a fire watch be posted.
(c) Assigning employees to fire watch duty. (1) The employer must
not assign other duties to an employee assigned to fire watch;
(2) Employers must ensure that employees assigned to fire watch
duty:
(i) Have a clear view of and immediate access to all areas included
in the fire watch;
(ii) Are able to communicate with workers exposed to hot work, if
necessary;
(iii) Remain in the hot work area for at least 30 minutes after
completion of the hot work, unless the employer or his or her
representative surveys the exposed area and makes a determination that
there is no further fire hazard;
(iv) Are trained to detect fires that occur in areas exposed to the
hot work;
(v) Attempt to extinguish any incipient stage fires in the hot work
area that are within the capability of available equipment and within
the fire watch's training qualifications, as defined in Sec. 1915.508
of this Part;
(vi) Alert employees of any fire beyond the incipient stage; and
(vii) If unable to extinguish fire in the areas exposed to the hot
work, activate the alarm to start the evacuation procedure in
accordance with the employer's fire prevention plan.
Sec. 1915.505 Fire response.
(a) Employer responsibilities. The employer must:
(1) Decide what type of response will be provided and who will
provide it;
(2) Create, maintain, and update a written statement or policy that
describes the internal and outside fire response organizations that the
employer will use; and
(3) Create, maintain, and update a written statement or policy that
defines what evacuation procedures employees must follow, if the
employer chooses to require a total or partial evacuation of the
worksite at the time of a fire.
(b) Required written policy statement information. (1) Internal
fire response. If an internal fire response is to be used, the
following information must be included in the employer's policy
statement:
(i) The basic structure of the fire response organization;
(ii) The number of trained fire response employees;
(iii) The fire response functions that may need to be carried out;
(iv) The minimum number of fire response employees necessary, the
number and types of apparatus, and a description of the fire
suppression operations established by written standard operating
procedures for each type of fire response at the employer's facility;
(v) The type, amount, and frequency of training that must be given
to fire response employees; and
(vi) The procedure for use of protective clothing and equipment.
(2) Outside fire response. If an outside fire response organization
is used, the following information must be included in the employer's
policy statement:
(i) The types of fire suppression incidents to which the fire
response organization is expected to respond at the employer's facility
or worksite;
(ii) The liaisons between the employer and the outside fire
response organizations;
(iii) A plan for fire response functions that:
(A) Addresses procedures for obtaining assistance from other fire
response organizations;
(B) Familiarizes the outside fire response organization with the
layout of the employer's facility or worksite, including access routes
to controlled areas, and site-specific operations, occupancies, vessels
or vessel sections, and hazards; and
(C) Sets forth how hose and coupling connection threads are to be
made compatible and includes where the adapter couplings are kept; or
(D) States that the employer will not allow the use of incompatible
hose connections.
(3) A combination of internal and outside fire response. If a
combination of internal and outside fire response is to be used, the
following information, in addition to the requirements in paragraphs
(b)(1) and (2) of this section, must be included in the employer's
policy statement:
(i) The basic organizational structure of the combined fire
response;
(ii) The number of combined trained fire responders;
(iii) The fire response functions that need to be carried out;
(iv) The minimum number of fire response employees necessary, the
number and types of apparatus, and a description of the fire
suppression operations established by written standard operating
procedures for each particular type of fire response at the worksite;
(v) The type, amount, and frequency of joint training that must be
given to fire response employees;
(4) Employee evacuation. The employer must include the following
information in the employer's policy statement:
(i) Emergency escape procedures;
(ii) Procedures to be followed by employees who may remain longer
at the worksite to perform critical shipyard employment operations
during the evacuation;
(iii) Procedures to account for all employees after emergency
evacuation is completed;
(iv) The preferred means of reporting fires and other emergencies;
and
[[Page 76249]]
(v) Names or job titles of the employees or departments to be
contacted for further information or explanation of duties.
(5) Rescue and emergency response. The employer must include the
following information in the employer's policy statement:
(i) A description of the emergency rescue procedures; and
(ii) Names or job titles of the employees who are assigned to
perform them.
(c) Medical requirements for shipyard fire response employees. The
employer must make sure that:
(1) All fire response employees receive medical examinations to
assure that they are physically and medically fit for the duties they
are expected to perform;
(2) Fire response employees who are required to wear respirators in
performing their duties meet the medical requirements of 29 CFR
1915.154;
(3) Each fire response employee has an annual medical examination;
(4) The medical records of fire response employees are kept in
accordance with 29 CFR 1915.1020.
(d) Organization of internal fire response functions. The employer
must:
(1) Organize fire response functions to ensure enough resources to
conduct emergency operations safely;
(2) Set up written administrative regulations, standard operating
procedures, and departmental orders for fire response functions; and
(3) Set up an incident management system (IMS) to coordinate and
direct fire response functions, including:
(i) Specific fire emergency responsibilities;
(ii) Accountability for all fire response employees participating
in an emergency operation; and
(iii) Resources offered by outside organizations.
(4) Provide this information to the outside fire response
organization to be used.
(e) Personal protective clothing and equipment for fire response
employees.--(1) General requirements. The employer must:
(i) Supply to all fire response employees, at no cost, the
appropriate personal protective clothing and equipment they may need to
perform expected duties; and
(ii) Make sure that fire response employees wear the appropriate
personal protective clothing and use the equipment when necessary, to
protect them from hazardous exposures.
(2) Thermal stability and flame resistance. The employer must:
(i) Make sure that each fire response employee exposed to the
hazards of flame does not wear clothing that could increase the extent
of injury that could be sustained; and
(ii) Prohibit wearing clothing made from acetate, nylon, or
polyester, either alone or in blends, unless it can be shown:
(A) That the fabric will withstand the flammability hazard that may
be encountered; or
(B) That the clothing will be worn in such a way to eliminate the
flammability hazard that may be encountered.
(3) Respiratory protection. The employer must:
(i) Provide self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) to all fire
response employees involved in an emergency operation in an atmosphere
that is immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH), potentially
IDLH, or unknown:
(ii) Provide self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) to fire
response employees performing emergency operations during hazardous
chemical emergencies that will expose them to known chemicals in vapor
form or to unknown chemicals;
(iii) Provide fire response employees who perform or support
emergency operations that will expose them to chemicals in liquid form,
either:
(A) Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA), or
(B) Respiratory protective devices certified by NIOSH under 42 CFR
part 84 as suitable for the specific chemical environment.
(iv) Ensure that additional outside air supplies used in
conjunction with SCBA result in positive pressure systems that are
certified by NIOSH under 42 CFR part 84;
(v) Provide only SCBA that meet the requirements of NFPA 1981-1997,
Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus for
Firefighters (incorporated by reference in Sec. 1915.5); \1\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the final rule, OSHA will amend Sec. 1915.5 to reflect
the incorporation by reference of the NFPA standards referenced in
this subpart.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(vi) Ensure that the respiratory protection program and all
respiratory protection equipment comply with 29 CFR 1915.154.
(4) Interior structural firefighting operations. The employer must:
(i) Supply at no cost to all fire response employees exposed to the
hazards of shipyard fire response, a protective coat and trousers or a
protective coverall along with a helmet, gloves, footwear, and
protective hoods; and
(ii) Ensure that this equipment meets the applicable requirements
of NFPA 1971-2000, Standard on Protective Clothing Ensemble for
Structural Firefighting (incorporated by reference in Sec. 1915.5).
(5) Proximity firefighting operations. The employer must: Provide,
at no cost, to all fire response employees who are exposed to the
hazards of proximity firefighting, appropriate protective proximity
clothing meets the applicable requirements of NFPA 1976-2000, Standard
on Protective Clothing for Proximity Firefighting (incorporated by
reference in Sec. 1915.5).
(6) Personal Alert Safety System (PASS) devices. The employer must:
(i) Provide each fire response employee involved in firefighting
operations with a PASS device; and
(ii) Ensure that each PASS device meets the requirements of NFPA
1982-1998, Standard on Personal Alert Safety Systems (PASS) for
Firefighters (incorporated by reference in Sec. 1915.5).
(7) Life safety ropes, body harnesses, and hardware. The employer
must ensure:
(i) That all life safety ropes, body harnesses, and hardware used
by fire response employees for emergency operations meet the applicable
requirements of NFPA 1983-2001, Standard on Fire Service Life Safety
Rope, Harnesses, and Hardware (incorporated by reference in Sec.
1915.5);
(ii) That fire response employees use only class I body harnesses
to attach to ladders and aerial devices; and
(iii) That fire response employees use only class II and class III
body harnesses for fall arrest and repelling operations.
(f) Equipment maintenance. (1) Personal protective equipment. The
employer must inspect and maintain personal protective equipment used
to protect fire response employees to ensure that it provides the
intended protection.
(2) Fire response equipment. The employer must:
(i) Keep fire response equipment in a state of readiness;
(ii) Standardize all fire hose coupling and connection threads
throughout the facility and on vessels and vessel sections by providing
the same type of hose coupling and connection threads for hoses of the
same or similar diameter; and
(iii) Ensure that either all fire hoses and coupling connection
threads are the same within a facility or vessel or vessel section as
those used by the outside fire response organization, or supply
suitable adapter couplings if such an organization is expected to use
the fire
[[Page 76250]]
response equipment within a facility or vessel or vessel section.
Sec. 1915.506 Hazards of fixed extinguishing systems on board vessels
and vessel sections.
(a) Employer responsibilities. The employer must comply with the
provisions of this section whenever employees are exposed to fixed
extinguishing systems that could create a hazardous atmosphere when
activated aboard vessels and vessel sections, regardless of geographic
location.
(b) Requirements for automatic and manual systems. Before any work
is done in a space equipped with fixed extinguishing systems:
(1) The employer must either physically isolate the systems or have
other positive means to prevent the systems' discharge; or
(2) Ensure employees are trained to recognize systems discharge and
evacuation alarms, and to recognize the appropriate escape routes;
(3) Protective measures must be taken to ensure that all doors,
hatches, scuttles, and other exit openings remain working and
accessible for escape in the event the systems are activated; and
(4) If systems activation could result in a positive pressure in
the protected spaces, all inward opening doors, hatches, scuttles, and
other potential barriers to safe exit must be removed, locked open,
braced, or otherwise secured so that they remain open and accessible
for escape; and
(5) Employees must be trained to recognize hazards associated with
the extinguishing systems and agents including the dangers of
disturbing system components and equipment such as, piping, cables,
linkages, detection devices, activation devices, and alarm devices.
(c) Additional Requirement for manual systems. Before any work is
done in a space equipped with fixed extinguishing systems that are
activated only manually, the employer must ensure that during trials
all pull stations and other activation stations, whether remote or
local, must be secured either under lock and key or by posting an
attendant, so that they cannot be accessed by unauthorized persons.
(d) Testing the system. The employer must make sure that the system
is physically isolated and that all employees not directly involved in
testing it are evacuated from the protected spaces and affected areas
on board any vessel or vessel sections, before testing any fixed
extinguishing system.
(e) Conducting system maintenance. Before conducting maintenance on
a fixed extinguishing system the employer must make sure that the
system is physically isolated.
(f) Using fixed manual extinguishing systems for fire protection.
If fixed manual extinguishing systems are used to provide fire
protection for protected spaces, the employer must ensure that:
(1) Employees are trained and designated to operate and activate
the systems; and
(2) All employees are evacuated from the protected spaces and
affected areas and accounted for, before the fixed manual extinguishing
system is activated.
Sec. 1915.507 Land side fire protection systems.
(a) Employer responsibilities. All fixed and portable fire
protection systems the employer installs to meet an OSHA standard for
employee life safety or employee protection from fire hazards in land
side facilities, including, but not limited to, buildings, structures,
and equipment must meet the requirements of this section.
(b) Portable fire extinguishers and hose systems. (1) The employer
must select, install, inspect, maintain, and test all portable fire
extinguishers according to NFPA 10-2002, Standard for Portable
Extinguishers (incorporated by reference in Sec. 1915.5).
(2) The employer shall be permitted to use class II or class III
hose systems, in accordance with NFPA 10-2002, as portable fire
extinguishers if the employer selects, installs, inspects, maintains,
and tests those systems according to the specific requirements in NFPA
14-2000, Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems
(incorporated by reference in Sec. 1915.5).
(c) General requirements for fixed extinguishing systems. The
employer must:
(1) Ensure that any fixed extinguishing system component or
extinguishing agent be approved by an OSHA Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratory (NRTL), meeting the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7,
for use on the specific hazards the employer expects it to control or
extinguish;
(2) Notify employees and take the necessary precautions to make
sure employees are safe from fire if for any reason a fire
extinguishing system stops working, until the system is working again;
(3) Make sure that all repairs to fire extinguishing systems and
equipment are done by a qualified technician or mechanic;
(4) When the atmosphere remains hazardous to employee safety or
health, provide proper personal protective equipment when employees
enter discharge areas or provide safeguards to prevent employees from
entering those areas.
Note to paragraph (c)(4): See Sec. 1915.12 for additional
requirements applicable to safe entry into spaces containing
dangerous atmospheres.
(5) Post hazard warning or caution signs at both the entrance to
and inside of areas protected by fixed extinguishing systems that use
extinguishing agents in concentrations known to be hazardous to
employee safety or health; and
(6) Select, install, inspect, maintain, and test all automatic fire
detection systems and emergency alarms according to NFPA 72-1999,
National Fire Alarm Code (incorporated by reference in Sec. 1915.5).
(d) Fixed extinguishing systems. The employer must select, install,
maintain, inspect, and test all fixed systems required by OSHA as
follows:
(1) Standpipe and hose systems according to NFPA 14-2000, Standard
for the Installation of Standpipe Systems (incorporated by reference in
Sec. 1915.5);
(2) Automatic sprinkler systems according to NFPA 13-1999, Standard
for the Installation of Automatic Sprinkler Systems or NFPA 750-2000,
Standard on Water Mist Extinguishing Systems, and NFPA 25-2002 Standard
for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-based Fire
Protection Systems (incorporated by reference in Sec. 1915.5);
(3) Fixed extinguishing systems that use water or foam as the
extinguishing agent according to NFPA 15-2001, Standard for Water Spray
Fixed Systems for Fire Protection, NFPA 11-2000, Standard for Low-
Expansion Foam, and NFPA 11A-1999, Standard for Medium- and High-
Expansion Foam Systems (incorporated by reference in Sec. 1915.5);
(4) Fixed extinguishing systems using dry chemical as the
extinguishing agent, according to NFPA 17-1998, Standard for Dry
Chemical Extinguishing Systems (incorporated by reference in Sec.
1915.5); and
(5) Fixed extinguishing systems using gas as the extinguishing
agent, according to NFPA 12-2000, Standard on Carbon Dioxide
Extinguishing Systems, NFPA 12A-1997, Standard on Halon 1301 Fire
Extinguishing Systems, and NFPA 2001-2000, Standard on Clean Agent Fire
Extinguishing Systems (incorporated by reference in Sec. 1915.5).
Sec. 1915.508 Training
(a) Employee training. The employer must train affected employees
when
[[Page 76251]]
they first start working and also when necessary to maintain
proficiency in the following:
(1) The general principles of using fire extinguishers or hose
lines, the hazards involved with incipient firefighting, and the
procedures used to reduce these hazards;
(2) The hazards associated with fixed and portable fire protection
systems that employees may use or to which they may be exposed during
discharge of those systems;
(3) The activation and operation of fixed and portable fire
protection systems that the employer expects employees to use in the
workplace;
(4) The emergency alarm signals including system discharge and
employee evacuation alarms; and
(5) The primary and secondary evacuation routes that employees must
use in the event of a fire in the workplace.
Note to paragraph (a)(5): While all vessels and vessel sections
have a primary evacuation route, not all will have a secondary
evacuation route.
(b) Training requirements for shipyard employees designated for
fire response. The employer must:
(1) Have a written training policy stating that fire response
employees are to be trained and capable of carrying out their duties
and responsibilities at all times;
(2) Keep written standard operating procedures that address
anticipated emergency operations and update these procedures as
necessary;
(3) Review fire response employee training programs and hands-on
sessions before they are used in fire response training to make sure
that fire response employees are protected from hazards associated with
fire response training;
(4) Provide training for fire response employees that ensures they
are capable of carrying out their duties and responsibilities under the
employer's standard operating procedures;
(5) Train new fire response employees before they engage in
emergency operations;
(6) At least quarterly, provide training on the written operating
procedures to fire response employees who are expected to fight fires;
(7) Use qualified instructors to conduct the training;
(8) Conduct any training that involves live fire response exercises
in accordance with NFPA 1403-2002, Standard on Live Fire Training
Evolutions (incorporated by reference in Sec. 1915.5) (Ex. 19-24);
(9) Conduct semi-annual drills for fire response employees that
cover site-specific operations, occupancies, buildings, vessels and
vessel sections, and hazards according to the employer's written
procedures; and
(10) Not use smoke generating devices that create a hazardous
atmosphere in training exercises.
(c) Training requirements for fire watch duty. (1) The employer
must ensure that each fire watch is trained as follows:
(i) Before being assigned to fire watch duty;
(ii) Whenever there is a change in operations that presents a new
or different hazard;
(iii) Whenever the employer has reason to believe that the fire
watch's knowledge or understanding of the training previously provided
is inadequate; and
(iv) Receives annual retraining.
(2) The employer must ensure that each employee who stands fire
watch duty is trained in:
(i) The basics of fire behavior, the different classes of fire and
of extinguishing agents, the stages of fire, and methods for
extinguishing fires;
(ii) Extinguishing live fire scenarios whenever allowed by local
and federal law;
(iii) The recognition of the adverse health effects that may be
caused by exposure to fire;
(iv) The physical characteristics of the hot work area;
(v) The hazards associated with fire watch duties;
(vi) The personal protective equipment (PPE) needed to perform fire
watch duties safely;
(vii) How to use the PPE;
(viii) How to select and use any fire extinguishers and fire hoses
likely to be used by a fire watch in the work area;
(ix) The location and use of barriers;
(x) The means of communication designated by the employer for fire
watches;
(xi) When and how to start fire alarm procedures; and
(xii) The employer's evacuation plan.
(3) The employer must ensure that each fire watch is trained to
alert others to exit the space whenever:
(i) The fire watch perceives an unsafe condition;
(ii) The fire watch perceives that a worker performing hot work is
in danger;
(iii) The employer or a representative of the employer orders an
evacuation; or
(iv) An evacuation signal, such as an alarm, is activated.
(d) Records. The employer must keep records that demonstrate that
employees have been trained as required by paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)
of this section.
(1) The records must include:
(i) The employee's name;
(ii) The trainer's name;
(iii) The type of training; and
(iv) The date(s) on which the training took place.
(2) The employer must keep each training record for one year from
the time it was made or until it is replaced with a new training
record, whichever is shorter, and make it available for inspection and
copying by OSHA personnel on request.
Sec. 1915.509 Definitions applicable to this subpart.
Affected employee--an employee whose job requires him or her to
perform hot work or to work in an area or space exposed to hazards
associated with the hot work that is being performed.
Alarm--a signal or message from a person or device that indicates
that there is a fire, medical emergency, or other situation that
requires emergency response or evacuation. This may be called an
``incident'' or a ``call for service.''
Alarm system--a system that warns all employees at the worksite of
danger.
Body harness--straps that may be secured about the employee in a
manner that will distribute the fall arrest forces over at least the
thighs, shoulders, chest, and pelvis, with means for attaching it to
other components of a personal fall arrest system.
Contract employer--an employer, such as a painter, joiner,
carpenter, or scaffolding sub-contractor, who performs work under
contract to the host employer or to another employer under contract to
the host employer at the host employer's worksite. Excludes employers
who provide incidental services that do not influence shipyard
employment (such as mail delivery or office supply services).
Dangerous atmosphere--an atmosphere that may expose employees to
the risk of death, incapacitation, injury, acute illness, or impairment
of ability to self-rescue (i.e., escape unaided from a confined or
enclosed space).
Designated area--an area established for hot work after an
assessment of fire hazard potential of facilities, vessels, or vessel
sections such as a fabrication shop.
Emergency operations--activities performed by a fire response
organization that are related to:
(1) Rescue;
(2) Fire suppression;
(3) Emergency medical care; and
(4) Special operations such as hazardous materials response
[[Page 76252]]
(HAZMAT), HAZMAT release mitigation, standby for flight operations
where needed, protection of structures exposed to nearby, off-site
fires, mutual-aid at other workplaces, etc. These activities include
responding to the scene of an incident, and all activities performed at
that scene.
Fire hazard--a condition or material that may start or contribute
to the spread of fire.
Fire protection--methods of providing fire prevention, response,
detection, control, extinguishment, and engineering.
Fire response--the activity taken by the employer at the time of an
emergency incident involving a fire at the worksite, including fire
suppression activities carried out by internal or external resources or
a combination of both, or total or partial employee evacuation of the
area exposed to the fire.
Fire response employee--a shipyard employee who performs shipyard
employment firefighting.
Fire response organization--an organized group knowledgeable,
trained, and skilled in shipyard firefighting operations who respond to
shipyard fire emergencies, including:
(1) Fire brigades;
(2) Shipyard fire departments;
(3) Private or contractual fire departments; and
(4) Municipal fire departments.
Fire suppression--the activities involved in controlling and
extinguishing fires. Fire suppression includes all activities performed
at the scene of a fire incident or training exercise that expose fire
response employees to the following dangers:
(1) Heat;
(2) Flame;
(3) Smoke;
(4) Other products of combustion;
(5) Explosion;
(6) Structural collapse; or
(7) Hazardous materials.
Fire watch--the activity of observing and responding to the fire
hazards associated with hot work in shipyard employment, and the
employees designated to do so.
Fixed extinguishing system--a permanently installed fire protection
system that either extinguishes or controls fire occurring in the space
it protects.
Flammable liquid--any liquid having a flashpoint below 100[deg]F.
(37.8[deg]C.), except any mixture having components with flashpoints of
100[deg]F. (37.8[deg]C.) or higher, the total of which make up 99
percent or more of the total volume of the mixture.
Hazardous atmosphere--an atmosphere that may expose employees to
the risk of death, incapacitation, injury, acute illness, or impairment
of ability to self-rescue (that is, escape unaided from a permit
space), from one or more of the following causes:
(1) Flammable gas, vapor, or mist in excess of 10 percent of its
lower flammable limit (LFL);
(2) Airborne combustible dust at a concentration that meets or
exceeds its LFL;
(3) Atmospheric oxygen concentration below 19.5 percent or above
22.5 percent;
(4) Atmospheric concentration of any substance for which a dose or
a permissible exposure limit is published in 29 CFR 1910, subpart G,
Occupational Health and Environmental Control, or in 29 CFR 1915,
subpart Z, Toxic and Hazardous Substances of this part, and that could
result in employee exposure in excess of its dose or permissible
exposure limit;
(5) Any other atmospheric condition that is immediately dangerous
to life or health (IDLH). Hazardous substance--a substance likely to
cause injury by reason of being explosive, flammable, poisonous,
corrosive, oxidizing, an irritant, or otherwise harmful.
Hose systems--fire protection systems consisting of a water supply,
approved fire hose, and a means to control the flow of water at the
output end of the hose.
Host employer--an employer who is in charge of coordinating work or
hiring other employers to perform work at a multi-employer workplace.
Hot work--any activity involving riveting, welding, burning, using
explosive actuated power tools, or similar fire-producing operations.
Grinding, drilling, abrasive blasting, or similar spark-producing
operations also are considered hot work, except when these operations
are physically removed from any atmosphere containing more than 10
percent of the lower explosive limit of a flammable or combustible
substance.
Incident management system--an organized system of roles,
responsibilities, and standard operating procedures used to manage
emergency operations. Such systems are often called ``Incident Command
Systems'' (ICS).
Inerting--the displacement of the atmosphere in a permit space by
noncombustible gas (such as nitrogen) to such an extent that the
resulting atmosphere is noncombustible. This procedure produces an IDLH
oxygen-deficient atmosphere.
Interior Structural Firefighting Operations--the physical activity
of fire response, rescue, or both, inside of buildings, enclosed
structures, vessels, and vessel sections that are involved in a fire
beyond the incipient stage.
Multi-employer workplace--a workplace where there is a host
employer and at least one contract employer.
Personal Alert Safety System (PASS)--a device that sounds a loud
signal if the wearer becomes immobilized or is motionless for 30
seconds or more.
Physical isolation--the elimination of a fire hazard by removing
the hazard from the work area (at least 35 feet for combustibles), by
covering or shielding the hazard with a fire-resistant material, or
physically preventing the hazard from entering the work area.
Physically isolated--positive isolation of the supply from the
distribution piping of a fixed extinguishing system. Examples of ways
of physically isolating include: Removing a spool piece and installing
a blank flange; providing a double block and bleed valve system; or
completely disconnecting valves and piping from all cylinders or other
pressure vessels containing extinguishing agents.
Protected space--any compartment where a fixed extinguishing system
discharges.
Proximity firefighting--specialized fire-fighting operations that
require specialized thermal protection and may include the activities
of rescue, fire suppression, and property conservation at incidents
involving fires producing very high levels of conductive, convective,
and radiant heat such as aircraft fires, bulk flammable gas fires, and
bulk flammable liquid fires. Proximity firefighting operations usually
are exterior operations but may be combined with structural
firefighting operations. Proximity firefighting is not entry
firefighting.
Qualified instructor--a person with specific knowledge, training,
and experience in fire response organizations, operations, and
deployment.
Rescue--locating endangered persons at an emergency incident,
removing those persons from danger, treating the injured, and
transporting the injured to an appropriate health care facility.
Shipyard employment--ship repairing, shipbuilding, shipbreaking,
and related employments, including vessels, vessel sections, and on
land-side operations regardless of geographic location.
Shipyard firefighting--the activity of rescue, fire suppression,
and property conservation involving buildings, enclosed structures,
vehicles, vessels, aircraft, or similar properties involved
[[Page 76253]]
in a fire or emergency situation. Shipyard firefighting includes any
fire that requires a fire attack hose line of 1-\1/2\ inch diameter or
larger to fight, and self-contained breathing apparatus by responders.
Standpipe--a fixed fire protection system consisting of piping and
hose connections used to supply water to approved hose lines or
sprinkler systems. The hose may or may not be connected to the system.
Appendix A to Subpart P--Model Fire Safety Plan
Model Fire Safety Plan
Table of Contents
I. Purpose.
II. Work site fire hazards and how to properly control them.
III. The preferred way to report fires and other emergencies.
IV. How to evacuate in different emergency situations.
V. Rescue and medical duties for those employees who perform them.
VI. Employee awareness.
I. Purpose
The purpose of this fire safety plan is to inform our employees
of how we will control and reduce the possibility of fire in the
workplace and to specify what equipment employees may use in case of
fire.
II. Work Site Fire Hazards and How To Properly Control Them
A. Measures to contain fires.
B. Teaching selected employees how to use fire protection
equipment.
C. What to do if you discover a fire.
D. Potential ignition sources for fires and how to control them.
E. Types of fire protection equipment and systems that can
control a fire.
F. The level of firefighting capability present in the facility.
G. Description of the personnel responsible for maintaining
equipment, alarms and systems that are installed to prevent or
control fire ignition sources, and to control fuel source hazards.
III. The Preferred Way To Report Fires and Other Emergencies
A. A demonstration of alarm procedures, if more than one type
exists.
B. The work site emergency alarm system.
C. Immediately notifying fire or police departments.
IV. How To Evacuate in Different Emergency Situations
A. Emergency escape procedures and route assignments.
B. Procedures to account for all employees after completing an
emergency evacuation.
C. What type of evacuation is needed and what the employee's
role is in carrying out the plan.
D. How to identify and recognize fire exits.
E. Helping physically impaired employees.
V. Rescue and Medical Duties for Those Employees Who Perform Them
A. Regular and after-hours work conditions.
VI. Employee Awareness
Names, job titles, or departments of individuals who can be
contacted for further information about this plan.
[FR Doc. 02-30405 Filed 12-10-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P