Date of Report: September 10, 1996 Location: NASA Headquarters Case Number: G-96-018
SYNOPSIS: This inspection was initiated to assess: (1) cost savings and transition planning preceding the closure of the Lewis Research Center (LeRC) Fire Department, and (2) whether current fire and emergency services meet acceptable standards.
We have concluded that: (1) the decision was cost effective though savings were overstated by $1.4 to $1.5M, (2) the planning for the transition to locally provided fire and emergency services was not adequate or timely, and (3) current local emergency services response times do not meet acceptable standards.
We recommend that LeRC management: (1) take immediate actions to establish appropriate emergency services response times; (2) conduct an independent, objective risk assessment to identify safety vulnerabilities, if any, with the current mode of operation and organizational structures; (3) conduct periodic scheduled and unscheduled table-top and live exercises with local emergency service providers to test processes and procedures; (4) explore alternative uses of the LeRC Fire Department's fire fighting and medical emergency equipment and vehicles; and (5) review Center policies and procedures to ensure compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and other federal, state and local guidance.
Background: LeRC management initiated a Red/Blue Team effort on November 18, 1994, to review emergency preparedness and response, identify savings and efficiencies, and develop alternative methods to accomplish these functions. Members of the team were from various offices at LeRC, other NASA Centers and the Lewis Engineers and Scientists Association (LESA). LESA, one of two Federal employee unions at LeRC, is Local 28 of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, an affiliate of the AFL-CIO. LESA has bargaining rights for some 1,900 LeRC white collar workers and is currently in the process of assuming representation of the former firefighters. Before the Red/Blue Team effort was completed, NASA's Zero Base Review (ZBR) recommended the elimination of the LeRC Fire Department. The Center adopted this recommendation. Closure was targeted for April 1996, to allow adequate time for the transition of fire and emergency service functions to local jurisdictions.
Under Ohio revised Code 737.11, municipalities are required to provide fire and emergency medical services to residents and businesses located within their geographic boundaries. LeRC has elements residing in three local municipalities - Cleveland, Brook Park and Fairview Park. (See Exhibit 1 for geographic boundaries) At the time of the ZBR recommendation, most NASA Centers were already dependent on and using local fire and emergency medical response services. (See Exhibit 2)
Purpose and Scope: The Office of Inspector General, Inspections and Assessments initiated an inspection to assess NASA management's decision to close LeRC Fire Department, the transition planning toward provision of fire and emergency medical services by local jurisdictions, and whether current LeRC fire and emergency medical services meet accepted local standards.
Methodology: We conducted interviews with LeRC management officials, current and former firefighters, union officials, LeRC health clinic staff, fire and safety experts of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, fire chiefs of the four fire departments involved, emergency medical instructors at Cuyahoga Community College (the providers of this training to LeRC through the Southwest Hospital), and former managers and employees of LeRC who were involved in the decision process and subsequent actions. We also conducted interviews of NASA Headquarters Safety and Quality Assurance staff.
We reviewed the 911 emergency number response logs from January 2, 1996 to August 6, 1996, applicable LeRC policy on the Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP), relevant documents, and Congressional and other correspondence. We also examined cost savings projected by the LeRC Office of Safety and Mission and Assurance (OSMA), descriptions of the newly created position (Safety and Occupational Health Specialist or Fire Protection Inspector) developed for the former firefighters, and published guidance on overtime pay for these positions.
Findings and conclusions are organized as follows: A. Cost Analysis - Salaries - Training - Chargebacks B. Transition Planning - Communication with Unions/Firefighters/Other Employees - Coordination with Local Officials - Coordination with Congress C. Safety Issues - Response Time - Hazardous Materials and Fire Emergencies - Compliance D. Equipment Issue
A. Cost Analysis
The ZBR report included an analysis addressing full-time equivalents (FTEs) and projected savings of $4,413, 000 over FY 1996 to FY 2000 for closing the LeRC Fire Department. (See Exhibit 3) There was nothing describing how these savings were determined. However, it appears the projected savings were based solely on the elimination of the 20 firefighter positions.
Subsequently, in the first quarter of calendar 1996, the LeRC OSMA issued the Lewis Fire Department Transition Cost Assessment . (See Exhibit 4) That assessment cites cost savings in the areas of salaries, equipment purchases, equipment main-tenance, training, and uniforms. The cost savings projected for FY 1997 through FY 2001 were $3,234,900. Our review of the projected savings reveals they appear to be overstated by $1,400,000 to $1,570,000. The cost savings associated with uniforms, new equipment purchases and equipment maintenance are realistic. However, we question the savings projected for salaries and training for the reasons indicated below.
Salaries: The major portion of projected savings is based on firefighter salaries. The basis for the projected savings assumed the firefighters would be terminated and, therefore, their full salaries including overtime and premium pay would be eliminated. Instead, the firefighters have been reassigned to other positions at the Center with no loss in grade. The only savings are those associated with premium pay and the delta in overtime pay. Thus, the projected savings were overstated by more than $1,000,000.
The secretarial position cited in the Summary Cost Savings section of the Lewis Fire Department Transition Cost Assessment carries a stated savings of $168,100 over the period, FY 1997 to FY 2001. There is disagreement between the firefighters and the OSMA regarding the need for a secretary. It was established during the former LeRC fire chief's tenure to handle administrative details and paperwork. The incumbent and the FTE were subsequently moved to the OSMA. Since it has been vacant for an extended period of time with no apparent efforts to fill it, the need for a secretary is questioned. If the position is unnecessary and would have remained vacant regardless of the Fire Department closure, then the savings are overstated by the $168,100.
Training: The savings shown for training for FY 1997 through FY 2000 were overstated by about $65,000. In the Summary Cost Savings section of the Lewis Fire Department Transition Cost Assessment, the cost of training is shown as $13,600 per year with inflation adjustments for a total of $71,900. According to the training coordinator for Cuyahoga Community College, the institution providing Lewis firefighter Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) recertification training, the cost to recertify 8-20 firefighters is $1,440 per year with training conducted at an off-site location. The $1,440 cost is not per individual but for a group of 8 to 20 firefighters at an off-site location. Thus, over the period 1997 to 2001, recertification training would cost NASA a total of $7,200 for the entire firefighter staff, not the $71,900 shown.
Charge-Backs: The LeRC assessment did not address the issue of charge-backs to employees or the Center for the cost of emergency medical (e.g., ambulance) and/or fire services. The potential of this cost should have been explored by Center management as part of the fire department closure and, if applicable, included in the cost-benefits study.
B. Transition Planning
Management's concern for the displaced employees and involvement of the union in actions affecting the future of the firefighters was a commendable example of partnering. However, management did not exercise the same care in communicating and coordinating with other employees, the local jurisdictions, or the Congress, particularly concerning issues of employee safety.
Communications with Unions/Firefighters/Other Employees. Following the decision to close the LeRC Fire Department, Center management involved the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the firefighters and other LeRC organizational elements. AFGE, the union designated as having bargaining rights for the firefighters at that time, supported the proposal to transition the firefighters to other safety and environment-related positions and was instrumental in negotiating inclusion of specific duties to retain the firefighters 20-year retirement eligibility and some overtime pay. The new positions were lateral transfers with no grade reductions and carried titles of Safety and Occupational Health Specialist or Fire Protection Inspector.
A duty incorporated into these positions included "Responds to Center emergencies as a first responder." As first responders, the reassigned firefighters would determine the nature and severity of the emergency and whether a municipal fire department or other assistance should be summoned. This duty, in addition to the other defined duties in the position descriptions, allowed retention of the former firefighters 20-year retirement eligibility. While firefighters lost some pay, management provided three shifts with associated overtime and differential pay. Notably, management took positive steps to avoid a reduction-in-force and possible separation.
Center management commendably held town meetings where participants could and did voice their concerns. A central issue raised was employee safety and, in particular, the response time for local jurisdictions to respond to emergencies. The LESA Safety Representative had raised the issue of employee safety during the Red/Blue Team review. This issue of safety was frequently revisited by LESA throughout the months prior to closure of the LeRC Fire Department. Center management's answers to specific questions concerning emergency response times and plans for ensuring employee safety were not timely and did not satisfy union representatives and increased employee concerns.
Coordination with Local Officials. The targeted date of April 1, 1996, for the Lewis Fire Department closure was established in late March 1995, allowing 12 months for planning and coordination. NASA did not timely hold meetings with the affected local fire departments. Meetings with the Cleveland and Brook Park Fire Departments were held in March 1996, less than 30 days before the originally targeted closure date. The Fire Chief of Brook Park stated that he first became aware of the LeRC fire department closure by accident. He and the LeRC Fire Department paramedic were attending a class at the Southwest Hospital and the closure issue came up during a discussion. The Fire Chief and the Brook Park Safety Officer called the LeRC OSMA the following day and were officially told of the closure. Center management did not meet with the Fairview Park Fire Chief until April 9, 1996. Allowing local municipalities less than 30 days to formally plan for the transition is clearly insufficient to ensure uncompromised safety operations. (See Exhibit 7)
Coordination with Congress. The intensified employee dissatisfaction catalyzed involvement of local elected officials and Congress. Responses from NASA Headquarters and LeRC management to Congressional inquiries were late and sometimes inaccurate or incomplete. On March 27, 1996, a joint letter was sent by Congressmen Hoke and LaTourette to Donald Campbell, LeRC Center Director, addressing their concerns that LeRC management had not produced a comprehensive plan and documentation of agreements with the service providers. They underscored this concern by referencing the November 28, 1995, meeting between Congressman LaTourette and Campbell, after which "the impression was left that all mutual aid agreements among appropriate parties would be in place prior to closing the Fire Department." The Congressmen requested that NASA delay the Fire Department closure until LeRC both confirmed and demonstrated how it would protect LeRC. They requested the Center to respond by March 29, 1996, due to the "time-sensitive nature of this request." On March 29, 1996, LeRC management informed Congressmen Hoke and LaTourette that the closure would be postponed until April 14, 1996, so LeRC could respond to their request.
On April 10, 1996, Congressman Hoke wrote to Mr. Campbell reminding him of the April 14, 1996, deadline concerning documentation responsive to "our concerns about the reassignment of LeRC firefighters." Congressman Hoke further stated, "My concern has been and remains that LeRC have an acceptable emergency service plan in place by April 14." On April 24, 1996, Congressman LaTourette wrote to Mr. Daniel Goldin, NASA Administrator, seeking Mr. Goldin's justification for closing the LeRC fire department under the ZBR process. "My efforts to discern the rationale behind this effort have been hampered by non-responsive correspondence from your agency regarding my time-sensitive inquiry." Congressman LaTourette also asked for "the cost comparison (dated) that led LeRC management to include closure of the LeRC fire station in the ZBR." NASA forwarded the requested cost comparison and other pertinent information to Congressman LaTourette on May 23, 1996.
C. Safety
Safety remains the major issue of concern to Center management, the unions, Congressional representatives, LeRC employees and the local municipal fire departments. We address specific areas of concern below.
Response Time. The most controversial safety issue is the response time for local jurisdictions to respond to emergencies at LeRC. The Associate Administrator, Office of Aeronautics, in a letter dated July 29, 1996, stated, "LeRC has received estimates of nominal response times ranging from 4-6 minutes for the cities of Brook Park and Fairview Park and 8-12 minutes for the city of Cleveland. Since the transition, there have been a number of incidents, all with appropriate response times." The Fire Chiefs of Cleveland and Brook Park have set the emergency response time of 7 minutes as their target. However, based on information shown in the 911 emergency number logs, response time targets are not being met. Response times by the local municipalities' emergency services have been consistently more than 10 minutes since the closure. The average response time for the 20 emergency runs from April 23 through August 6, 1996, was 13.6 minutes. The range of response times varied from as low as 4 to a high of 53 minutes (this high was an instance complicated by a law enforcement response). The average response time for Cleveland, the jurisdiction responsible for the most densely populated LeRC area, was 18.72 minutes; response times for Brook Park and Fairview Park is in the 7 to 7.5 minute range. Prior to the closure, the average response time was slightly over 3 minutes for fire and slightly less than 3 minutes for medical emergencies as shown on the 911 emergency number response logs.
Because notification of an emergency situation is routed to the Center dispatcher before notifying local municipalities, time delays in summoning assistance can occur. Under current NASA guidelines, the first responders immediately respond to the emergency notification (alarms, calls, etc.). When they arrive on site, they assess the situation and determine if outside assistance is required. The first responders notify the LeRC dis- patcher of the need for assistance. The LeRC dispatcher then places a call to the appropriate local jurisdiction's dispatcher. This causes a delay in notification of the municipal responders by 3 to 10 minutes. The Fire Chief of the Cleveland Fire Department, in his letter of May 21, 1996, (See Exhibit 5 ) pointed this out to Center management as being a violation of Ohio revised Code, Section 3737.63 in that the local fire departments were not being immediately informed of "unfriendly fire" situations under current [at that time] LeRC policy guidelines.
Statistical data alone does not always present a complete picture of circumstances or events. An example is a recent case where a contract employee was brought into the LeRC clinic by his supervisor, apparently suffering a heart attack. Cleveland's response time was described in a fax from the LESA President as an unacceptable 17 minutes. In fact, the physician on duty at the clinic immediately placed the patient on heart monitoring equipment, made the diagnosis of a heart attack in its incipient stage, and stabilized the patient. The doctor then called for the ambulance to provide transport to the local hospital. It is true that 17minutes elapsed from the time the phone call was placed to the time the ambulance arrived on site. However, during that time, the ambulance crew was in constant contact with the attending physician. The patient was in no danger because of the 17 minute response time of the ambulance.
While local municipalities have not always met response time targets, they do respond with stronger capabilities than was previously available with the LeRC Fire Department. The municipal ambulance and rescue squads normally include a fully certified paramedic as part of the response team. The LeRC Fire Department had only one fully certified paramedic. When this individual was not on duty, only an EMT was available to respond.
Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) and Fire Emergencies. HAZMAT containments have traditionally been led by the Cleveland Fire Department, assisted by the LeRC Fire Department. The Cleveland Fire Department has the equipment and trained personnel to attack HAZMAT situations with a full capability, such is not the case with the LeRC Fire Department. Local municipalities have ladder, pumper, and other specialized vehicles available to respond to HAZMAT and fire emergency calls. The LeRC Fire Department, which does not own a ladder truck, does not have a similar capability to fight fires above the second floor from the outside. All fires occurring above the second floor had to be fought from within the building, a more hazardous fire suppression approach.
Compliance. The Chief of the LeRC Office of Environmental Programs, in a letter dated June 20, 1996, to the Director, OSMA, stated that the current LeRC EPP is outdated and inaccurate. He went on to state that, this might result in violations of environmental laws (e.g., The Clean Water Act requires a current, accurate Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act requires a current contingency plan for responding to incidents). He further pointed out that LeRC has not conducted table-top drills using the new emergency response procedures. (Note: The OSMA is currently updating the EPP to reflect the organizational changes due to the closure of the Fire Department. A draft update was prepared for review by August 2, 1996, and is currently being circulated for comment.)
D. Equipment Issue.
No plans have been made for the disposition of the fire fighting and medical emergency equipment and vehicles. This equipment valued at $735,000, is operable and main-tained in a ready-to-go condition. (See Exhibit 6) The equipment includes a fully equipped ambulance and an "almost new" Amertek aircraft/structural fire truck. Other items include the Hurst Power Rescue Cutter, the Hurst Power Rescue Ram, the 5 Scot Air Packs, the Physio-Control Defibrillator, the Vetter Air Bag Regulator, radios and walkie-talkie units, and the Scot Gas Detector. Alternative uses of these vehicles and the emergency equipment should be explored and, where applicable, reutilized rather than being declared excess and disposed of through property disposal channels.
As of the date of this report, we received responses from the Associate Administrator for the Office of Aeronautics, the Associate Administrator for the Office of Management Systems and Facilities, and the Director, Lewis Research Center. LeRC management disputed findings regarding response times, transition planning, and cost savings. Material provided by LeRC management and staff and local fire department officials do not support their positions.
1. LeRC Center management should take immediate action to establish appropriate emergency response times.
2. NASA should perform (or contract for) an independent, objective risk assessment. The purpose of this assessment would be to identify risks, if any, associated with the current mode of operation and should include response times, capabilities of the responding emergency organizations, associated communications problems (e.g., dispatching, medical protocols, etc.), and suggested or recommended solutions. This assessment could help restore employee confidence and reduce safety concerns.
3. LeRC should conduct scheduled and unscheduled table-top and live exercises or drills with the local fire departments. Exercises should address the full range of emergency situations (e.g., medical emergencies, HAZMAT situations, and fire emergencies including confined rescues, chemical and toxic combustibles, and multi-storied building fires where the buildings exceed two stories in height). After action reports should be used to identify deficiencies and areas needing improvement including recommended corrective actions. Center management should then conduct followup activities to ensure corrective actions are taken.
4. LeRC should explore alternative uses of the fire fighting and medical emergency equipment and vehicles. For example, the ambulance could be used to support the LeRC medical clinic and staff during medical emergencies. The Cleveland-Hopkins Airport might be able to use the Amertek aircraft/structural vehicle, and, if so, an agreement should be reached about its use. All four local fire departments should be contacted to determine if any of the emergency equipment would be of value to them, and, if so, appropriate arrangements made for transfer or use.
5. Center management should review policies and procedures to ensure compliance with OSHA and other federal, state and local regulations and guidance.