[Federal Register: December 11, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 238)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 76213-76253]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11de02-18]
[[Page 76213]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Labor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
29 CFR Part 1915
Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment; Proposed Rule
[[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 ke