[Federal Register: September 15, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 178)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 55667-55708]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15se04-16]
[[Page 55667]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Labor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
29 CFR Part 1915
Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment; Final Rule
[[Page 55668]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1915
[Docket No. S-051]
[RIN No. 1218-AB51]
Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), U.S.
Department of Labor.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: By this rule, OSHA promulgates a fire protection standard for
shipyard employment. The proposed rule was developed through a
negotiated rulemaking process. The final standard provides increased
protection for shipyard employment workers from the hazards of fire on
vessels and vessel sections and at land-side facilities. The standard
reflects new technologies and current national consensus standards. It
also gathers all fire-related safety practices for shipyard employment
into a single subpart, which will make them more accessible and
understandable for employers and employees.
DATES: The final rule becomes effective December 14, 2004. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 14,
2004. However, affected parties are not required to respond to the
information collection (paperwork) requirements until OMB approves
those requirements and OSHA announces that approval in the Federal
Register.
ADDRESSES: In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 2112(a), the Agency designates
the Associate Solicitor of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health,
Office of the Solicitor of Labor, Room S4004, U.S. Department of Labor,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, to receive
petitions for review of the final rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information and press
inquiries, contact the OSHA Office of Communications, Room N-3647,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone:
(202) 693-1999. For technical information, contact Jim Maddux,
Director, Office of Maritime Standards, N-3609, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2222. For
additional copies of this Federal Register document, contact: Office of
Publications, Room N-3103, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-1888. For electronic copies
of this Federal Register document, as well as news releases, fact
sheets, and other relevant documents, visit OSHA's homepage at http://www.osha.gov
.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
This Preamble to the final standard is organized into the
following sections:
I. Background
II. Pertinent Legal Authority
III. Summary and Explanation of the Final Standard
IV. Summary of the Final Economic and Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis
V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
VI. Environmental Impact Assessment
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
VIII. Unfunded Mandates
IX. Federalism
X. State-Plan States
XI. Authority and Signature
I. Background
Fire Hazards in Shipyard Employment
The purpose of this standard is to increase the protection of
shipyard employment workers from fire hazards. Such workers 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, such as welding, grinding, and cutting metal with
torches, provide an ignition source for fires. There are also many
combustible materials on vessels and in shipyards, including flammable
fuels, cargo, wood structures, building materials, and litter. When
cutting torches are used in enclosed or confined spaces, accidentally
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. Fires in such confined or enclosed spaces can also result
in atmospheres of combustible gases, toxic fumes, or oxygen-depleted
air.
Shipyard employees are therefore at risk from fires, explosions,
toxic gases, and fumes that can result in burns, death, and
asphyxiation from a lack of oxygen. Based on data collected by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, for a workforce totaling 97,822, there is
an annual average of one fatality, 110 lost-workday ``heat/burn''
injuries, and more than three times that many total injuries due to
shipyard fires (Ex. 15).
Employees are also at special risk when fighting fires in
shipyards. Fighting fires at land-side facilities in shipyards can be
similar to traditional 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. 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 is considerably different
from structural firefighting. When traditional structural firefighting
techniques are used on a vessel fire, the result can be ineffective and
even catastrophic. The potential is much greater for serious injury to
firefighting personnel when tactics do not reflect the unique nature of
firefighting on vessels. 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 vessel fire, there may be little or no
ability to ventilate the heat, smoke, and gases produced by a 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.
For large or intense structural fires, a defensive fire-fighting option
is to ``surround and drown.'' This means that hose lines are positioned
outside the structure and voluminous amounts of water are applied until
the fire goes out. Strategic options for vessel fires, on the other
hand, are very limited and nearly always require an aggressive interior
attack.
While larger shipyards may have their own fire responders, smaller
shipyards use outside fire responders, typically the local fire
department. These municipal or other fire departments may have little
experience in fighting fires in shipyards, especially on vessels.
Proper coordination, familiarization, and training are necessary to
ensure the safety of outside firefighters who respond to shipyard
fires.
Fighting vessel fires may also be more complicated than traditional
firefighting because outside firefighters seldom have
[[Page 55669]]
the opportunity to learn the layout of the vessel. Vessels under
construction or modification may have constantly changing structures.
Firefighters operating on vessels 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,
causing firefighters boarding the ship to converge on one or two access
locations. This can lead to congestion of personnel and delay in
locating and extinguishing the fire. Equipment, tools, and vessel
components and structures can also restrict access. Staging platforms,
scaffolding, rigging, cranes, and even mooring lines can hamper
deploying hose lines and positioning firefighting 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 many trained
personnel.
Maintaining an adequate supply of air is another tactical problem
for firefighting operations on ships. Firefighters are usually equipped
with self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) that optimally provide a
30-minute supply, after which the compressed air bottle has to be
refilled or replaced. Vessel firefighting operations can last many
hours so firefighters have to be rotated frequently to resupply their
SCBA and counteract fatigue.
Vessel fires may 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 may become unstable and possibly
capsize or sink. This potential problem may require 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 vessel fires. Steel bulkheads and compartments in ships block
or limit radio signal transmissions. To compensate, firefighters have
to relay messages from within the ship by stationing personnel with
radios close enough to allow transmissions. Other alternatives include
using runners or deploying hard-wire communications systems. All
possible solutions to this problem involve additional personnel and
delays in establishing command and control, which may increase the
potential for mishaps.
Fires in shipyards present serious hazards to those who work to
control them. Fire response employees are exposed to dangers such as
heat, flame, smoke, explosion, structural collapse, and hazardous
materials. 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 standard to
cover both these situations. Likewise, other shipyard employees can
benefit from a single fire protection standard for all aspects of
shipyard employment by having fires extinguished more rapidly and
effectively.
OSHA's general industry standards for fire protection are in
Subpart L, 29 CFR Part 1910.155 through 1910.165, but Sec. 1910.155(b)
exempts maritime employments from coverage. Subpart L addresses fire
prevention and firefighting methods typically used by general industry.
OSHA compliance policy, set out in OSHA Instruction CPL 02-00-133,
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 (also referred to as just ``vessels''
hereafter), OSHA has used the General Duty Clause Section 5(a)(1) of
the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act or Act) to cite fire
safety hazards at land-side facilities at shipyards and on board
vessels and vessel sections. Because enforcement under the General Duty
Clause requires OSHA to show, on a case by case basis, the existence of
a hazard, that the hazard is recognized, that the hazard is causing or
likely to cause serious physical harm to employees, and that a feasible
means exists to abate the hazard, employers have not been given clear
regulatory requirements to follow and enforcement has been difficult.
The Agency has concluded that codifying relevant issues for fire
protection in shipyards into a single subpart in 29 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 the 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.
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 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 work at land-side facilities and aboard vessels is located within
the same general 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. The Fire
Protection in Shipyard Employment Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory
Committee concluded that when fire response crews find shipyards
following a single fire protection standard on vessels and land-side
facilities, the crews are more effective in their fire response
activities. OSHA agrees and has concluded that a single new standard
addressing fire hazards for all shipyard employment, land-side and on
board vessels, is reasonably necessary and appropriate to protect
shipyard employees.
The Agency has concluded that fire and firefighting activities in
shipyard employment pose a significant risk to employees that can
result in death, burns and other serious fire-related injuries. OSHA
further concludes that the standard's requirements relating to fire
hazards will help save lives and prevent injuries. The Agency has also
concluded that the standard is technologically and economically
feasible as well as cost-effective. It will substantially reduce the
risk from fire hazards by recognizing and, in some cases, requiring new
fire protection technologies.
Advisory Committees and Procedural History
OSHA relied on the involvement of several advisory committees to
develop this shipyard fire protection standard. The committees are the
Shipyard Employment Standards Advisory Committee (SESAC), the
predecessor of the Maritime Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety
and Health (MACOSH), which, after reviewing pertinent federal
regulations and guidelines issued by professional associations, drafted
a shipyard employment fire protection standard (SESAC, Ex. 9); MACOSH,
which urged OSHA to proceed with a fire protection
[[Page 55670]]
standard in 1995; and the Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment
Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee (hereafter referred to as
``the Committee''), formed in 1996 under the Federal Advisory Committee
Act and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (61 FR 28824).
The members of the Committee were: Chris Myskowski, U.S. Coast
Guard; Paul Jensen, National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH); Joseph V. Daddura, Office of Maritime Standards, OSHA;
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 (NFPA); 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; Jim Paulson, National Steel & Shipbuilding Co.; and Peter
Schmidt, Office of Specialty Compliance Programs, Washington State
Department of Labor and Industry. The Agency wishes to thank all of the
Committee members for their time, effort, and patience in helping to
develop the draft proposed standard.
The Committee met nine times between October 1996 and February 2002
(Ex. 5). At its final meeting, the Committee unanimously approved a
recommended standard for fire protection in shipyards. With minor
editorial revisions, the Agency published the recommendations as a
proposed standard on December 11, 2002 (67 FR 76213). A comment period
to the proposed rule of 90 days ended on March 11, 2003. OSHA received
31 comments. The final standard continues to reflect most of the
Committee's recommendations, with minor modifications made in response
to the comments received from the public. The comments and
modifications are discussed in the Summary and Explanation of the final
standard below.
Some commenters expressed support for the proposed standard.
Shipbuilders Council of America (SCA), Southwest Shipyard, Detyens
Shipyards, Inc., and Gladding-Hearn Shipbuilding commended ``OSHA for
recognizing the fact that day-to-day shipyard operations differ
considerably from general industry and that an industry specific
guideline is needed to address shipyard fire hazards'' (Exs. 21-5; 21-
6; 21-7; 21-13). In addition, these commenters stated ``[t]hat the
Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (Neg Reg) process that was used to
draft the Shipyard Fire Protection NPRM was overall beneficial'' (Exs.
21-4; 21-5; 21-6; 21-7; 21-13). SCA, Detyens Shipyards, and Gladding-
Hearn went further to state that they ``[R]ecommend using the Neg Reg
for industry-specific issues that may develop in the future.'' (Exs.
21-5; 21-7; 21-13). Trinity Industries also stated that it was
``[p]leased with the Shipyard Fire Protection NPRM'' (Ex. 21-4). Puget
Sound Shipbuilders Association stated:
With a few exceptions, I find this document follows what the
Seattle Fire Department Administrative Regulation 49.1 mandates for
hotwork in shipyard, boatyard, and water front operations. The
Seattle Fire Department regulation has made a major and positive
impact on the overall safety of hot-work operations within their
areas of responsibility''. Areas of Incident Command, interagency
training and communication are key elements to successfully resolve
issues prior to an emergency at a facility. These issues may be new
to some facilities and I would encourage those who need assistance
to contact the local Fire or Emergency Services Department. Many of
these agencies will provide training at little or no expense. We in
Puget Sound Shipyard are fortunate to have Safety Staff experienced
in these elements and conduct annual training with the Seattle Fire
Department. Areas of Confined Space Rescue, Pre-fire tours/planning,
as well as the annual facility inspection enhance our report with
the fire department. Complying with the PPE requirements should be
of no strain to any maritime industry. Respirator fit testing and
such is an ongoing event. Those facilities that have an ``in house''
Fire Department or Fire Brigade should already be complying with the
current OSHA regulations as well as NFPA recommendations (Ex. 21-2).
II. Pertinent Legal Authority
The purpose of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq., 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, and 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.'' 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5).
III. Summary and Explanation of the Final Standard
The comments OSHA received on the proposed standard supported the
Committee's general approach to the issues, as well as the need for the
standard. There were suggestions related to specific provisions, and
these are addressed below in the discussion of
[[Page 55671]]
each section. OSHA has revised the proposed regulatory text where
appropriate in response to comments, and has also made minor editorial
revisions to better clarify the final regulatory text.
In this rule, OSHA is incorporating by reference 19 National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) consensus standards. In keeping with past
practice, the consensus standards are listed in Sec. 1915.5,
Incorporation by Reference (IBR). There are ten additional NFPA
standards referenced in the preamble, but they are not incorporated by
reference. Reliance on national consensus standards such as those
referenced in Subpart P is a longstanding U.S. government policy. The
U.S. Office of Management and Budget, in Circular A-119, directs
federal agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in lieu of
government-unique standards except where inconsistent with law or
otherwise impractical. The majority of these consensus standards are
referenced in Sec. 1915.505, Fire Response, and Sec. 1915.507, Land-
side Fire Protection systems.
In the proposed rule, there were several incorrect references to
NFPA standards that OSHA has identified and corrected in this final
rule. These errors were minor and the correct referenced versions of
the NFPA standards can be found in OSHA docket S-051. The following
table lists the NFPA standards incorrectly cited in the proposal along
with the correct citation used in the final rule:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorrect citations Correct citations NPRM page location
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NFPA 10-2002 Standard for Portable Fire NFPA 10-1998 Standard for 76250 (2 locations).
Extinguishers. Portable Fire Extinguishers.
NFPA 11-2000 Standard for Low-Expansion NFPA 11-1998 Standard for Low- 76236, 76250.
Foam. Expansion Foam.
NFPA 15-2002 Standard for Water Spray NFPA 15-2001 Standard for Water 76236.
Fixed Systems for Fire Protection (Ex. Spray Fixed Systems for Fire
20-19). Protection (Ex. 19-19).
NFPA 17-1998 Standard for Dry Chemical NFPA 17-2002 Standard for Dry 76237, 76250.
Extinguishing Systems (Ex. 19-20). Chemical Extinguishing Systems
(Ex. 19-20).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPRM, OSHA proposed to delete section 1915.52, Fire
prevention, which is located in Subpart D Welding, Cutting and Heating,
because it is superceded by the comprehensive fire protection
requirements in the new Subpart P. Section 1915.52 included the fire
prevention standards for welding and burning in shipyard employment,
and was the basis for many of the requirements now found in Subpart P,
Section 1915.503--Precautions for hot work. No comments were received
and OSHA is therefore deleting this section as proposed. Section
1915.52 will be listed as ``reserved'' to avoid any need to renumber
subsequent sections, and it will be available for future use, if
needed.
OSHA also proposed to delete paragraphs (d), (f), and (g) of Sec.
1915.55, Gas welding and heating, in the NPRM. These paragraphs
included provisions for the ``Use of fuel gas,'' ``Hose,'' and
``Torches,'' respectively. After re-examining this proposed deletion,
OSHA has found it is necessary to retain these paragraphs. Without
them, the final standard would not address potentially hazardous
situations. Thus, to ensure the continued protection of workers while
welding, cutting, and heating, OSHA will not delete the paragraphs.
Section 1915.501 General Provisions
Purpose
In Sec. 1915.501(a), OSHA states the purpose of the standard is to
require employers to protect all employees from fire hazards in
shipyard employment, including employees engaged in fire response
activities.
Scope
Paragraph (b) of Sec. 1915.501 describes the scope of the final
standard, which is all shipyard employment work, including work on
vessels and vessel sections and at land-side operations, regardless of
geographic location. The final requirement is nearly identical to the
proposed requirement. The only change is to replace ``and/or'' with
``and.'' The scope of this subpart is consistent with that in Subpart
B, Confined and Enclosed Spaces and Other Dangerous Atmospheres in
Shipyard Employment, and Subpart I, Personal Protective Equipment for
Shipyard Employment. It is also consistent with OSHA's previous policy
concerning the scope of the Part 1915 standards.
The scope of this standard includes all fire response provided by
the employers' workers, whether they are part of a fire brigade,
shipyard fire department, or simply designated by the employer.
Shipyard employment includes shipbuilding, ship conversion, ship
repairing, shipbreaking, and related employments. It also includes
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.
The scope of the standard has broad coverage because shipyard
employers are increasingly engaged 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.
Shipyard employment also includes support operations necessary for
vessel construction and repair. Such support operations include metal
fabrication, machine shops, electrical shops, and paint shops, which
are facilities typically 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 to fabrication on a vessel.
OSHA has included the phrase ``regardless of geographic location''
in the scope so that protection is afforded to employees wherever they
engage in shipyard employment: on vessels, on vessel sections, at land-
side facilities, or at any other location where they perform shipyard
employment. This has been the Agency's long-standing policy on shipyard
employment, and is the scope of both Subparts B and I.
Shipyard employment also occurs on vessels and vessel sections
within the navigable waters of the United States, and includes work on
a vessel or part of a vessel that is being constructed, repaired, or
broken up, or whether it is in the shipyard or dockside, at anchor, or
underway for testing. The requirements in this subpart will apply to
all vessels within OSHA's jurisdictional boundaries.
Several commenters recommended a revision of paragraph (b) (Exs.
21-10; 21-15; 21-16; 22-1; 22-2; 22-3; 22-4; 22-5; 22-6; 22-7; 22-8;
22-9; 22-10; 22-11; 22-13). They suggested that the phrase ``or on
land-side operations regardless of geographic location'' be
[[Page 55672]]
replaced with ``or at facilities where vessels or vessel sections are
located.'' The commenters were concerned about the application of the
standard to off-site suppliers and contractors, such as a metal shop
not engaged in shipyard employment that supplies duct work to a
shipyard. The commenters did not think it would be appropriate for
Subpart P to apply to such establishments that only supply materials or
subcomponents to be installed on a vessel or used in a shipyard.
OSHA has carried forward the proposed scope language in the final
rule. However, in order to address the concerns raised, the Agency
wants to clarify the degree to which it intends to regulate contract
employers at shipyards. Contractors who engage in work outside of
shipyards do not have to follow Subpart P within their own facilities.
For example, Subpart P would not cover the metal shop described above.
However, when the metal shop employees are engaged in shipyard
activities within the shipyard, they must comply with Subpart P. The
scope of Subpart P does not include shore side support services, such
as those provided by vending equipment and mail delivery companies.
The scope of the final rule includes all employees doing shipyard-
related work wherever that work takes place. For instance, whether the
work is in the employers' shipyard, on a ship at anchor, or at a ship
at a dock several miles away, it is considered shipyard employment.
When subcontractors perform work in a shipyard, they must follow the
standards of 29 CFR Part 1915.
Employee Involvement
In Sec. 1915.501(c), OSHA requires employee participation in
shipyard safety and health program activities. OSHA requires the
employer to provide for the participation of employees and employee
representatives in the development and review of programs and policies
adopted to comply with this standard. The Committee also recommended
that such employee participation and involvement be included in the
standard.
Several commenters suggested that OSHA replace the word ``and''
with ``and/or'' in Sec. 1915.501(c).
In large companies it may not be feasible to include employees
as well as employee representatives in the development of programs
and policies. It is more likely that the employee representatives
will participate in the development process and solicit input from
their respective constituents. A large company may depend on labor
union stewards or safety committee members to represent the labor
force. In either case employee input is obtained. Recommendation:
Make this an ``and/or'' situation. ``The employer must provide ways
for the employees and/or employee representatives * * *'' (Exs. 21-
3; 21-10; 21-15; 21-16; 22-1; 22-6; 22-7; 22-8; 22-9; 22-10; 22-11;
22-14).
Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) commented that
The size of the organization/facility may limit its ability to
include employees and employee representatives in the development of
programs and policies. Employee representatives and/or safety
boards/committees will be more likely to participate in the
development process, and solicit input from their respective
constituents (Ex. 22-15).
The comments raised the issue that it may not be practical for both
employees and their representative to participate. The Committee and
OSHA viewed the employee involvement requirement as crucial. However,
the Agency agrees with these commenters that the participation of
either employees or employee representatives in the development or
review of programs or policies is sufficient. Examples of employee
representatives include employee safety boards and committees or labor
union stewards. The Agency has altered the final language will read
``employees, employee representatives, or both to participate'' to
allow for employees, their representatives, or both to participate in
developing and periodically reviewing programs and policies.
Multi-Employer Worksites
Paragraph (d) of Sec. 1915.501 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.
The multi-employer requirements are 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 about which employees of other employers are
unaware. All employers need information about relevant 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 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. Such tragic events and
the increased reliance on 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. In the shipyard
industry, it is common practice to hire contractors for non-routine or
specialized work situations. For example, painting, joining, carpentry,
and scaffolding contractors are routinely used in shipyard employment.
In the final standard, OSHA has retained in paragraph (d)(1)(i) and
(ii) the proposed provisions that 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.
OSHA specifically requested input from the public on the use of the
terms ``host employer'' and ``contract employer'' and whether it is
clear which employer is responsible under the provisions, and whether
there is another way to define or clarify which employer is responsible
for implementing the requirements. Northrop Grumman/ Newport News
Shipyard (NGNN) submitted the only comment on this issue:
The rule should be clarified to reflect the fact that there is
typically more than one host employer at a shipyard work site or on
board a vessel. For example, a ship owner may conduct work on its
own vessel, or hire other contractors that are not under contract to
or supervised by the shipyard where the vessel is temporarily
located. Additionally, each ``host employer'' will have its own
subcontractors and its specific work for the safety of which it
should be responsible. The various host employers should be able to
allocate among themselves in manners suitable to the individual
circumstances (Ex. 21-8).
It was the clear intent of the proposal that a single shipyard
employer have responsibility for acquainting every employer on site of
the contents of the fire safety plan and emergency procedures. However,
OSHA agrees
[[Page 55673]]
with Newport News Shipyard that there may be circumstances where a
vessel owner may also be a host employer. Therefore, OSHA is adding a
new provision, paragraph (d)(1)(iii), which also has a clarifying
sentence to ensure that all employers are communicating and following
their fire safety plans (see discussion below).
The definition of ``host employer'' in Sec. 1915.509 Definitions
is an employer who is in charge of coordinating work or who hires other
employers to perform work at a multi-employer workplace. The definition
of ``contract employer'' is an employer who performs work under
contract to 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 responsibilities of host employers are established in Sec.
1915.501(d)(1). In paragraph (d)(1)(i), OSHA requires the host
employers to ensure that information about fire hazards, controls,
safety and health rules, and emergency procedures is given to all
contract employers. The information includes whatever a contract
employer must have to carry out its own duties as an employer under
this rule.
OSHA is requiring in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) that the host employer
make sure that fire protection responsibilities are specifically
assigned to the various employers and contractors working at a multi-
employer worksite. Some of these responsibilities include fire hazard
abatement, informing employees of fire hazards before exposure, and
stopping work because of an imminent danger situation. The host
employer must, in conjunction with the contract employers, decide who
is to train employees and control which hazards.
Contract employers must know (from the host employer) about other
hazards related to fire which their employees might encounter at the
workplace. Such knowledge allows contract employers to plan
effectively, safely carry out their work, and understand procedures,
such as what to do when a fire alarm is sounded to evacuate a vessel.
Contract employers also 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. This information lessens the likelihood that accidents will
occur.
To further clarify the roles of the host employer, the Agency has
added a new provision, Sec. 1915.501(d)(1)(iii), to ensure that when
there is more than one host employer, each host employer must
communicate to other host employers relevant information about fire-
related hazards. In addition, OSHA is adding a clarifying sentence as
follows: ``When a vessel owner or operator (temporarily) becomes a host
shipyard employer, by directing the work of ships' crews on repair or
modification of the vessel or hiring other contractors directly, the
vessel owner or operator must also comply with these provisions for
host employers.''
Paragraph (d)(2) of Sec. 1915.501 states the responsibilities for
contract employers. The contract employer must inform the host employer
of any fire hazards that could be created by the work being performed
by its employees, and what steps the contract employer must take to
address those hazards. In addition, OSHA requires that any hazards that
were not previously identified by the host employer, but were
identified by the contract employer, must be shared with the host
employer. No comments were received on paragraph (d)(2) and OSHA has
carried it forward in the final standard.
Section 1915.502 Fire Safety Plan
The final standard includes requirements for an overall 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. The plan must include procedures for the
control of fire hazards, such as flammable and non-flammable compressed
gases, ignition sources, combustible materials, and welding and hot
work operations, and must include procedures for evacuation.
Employer Responsibilities
In Sec. 1915.502(a), OSHA is requiring the employer to develop and
implement a written fire safety plan that covers all the actions that
employers and employees must take to ensure employee safety in the
event of a fire. A written plan enables employers and employees to see
how the employer intends to protect workers; enables employers to
readily exchange information; provides continuity of procedures; and
provides 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.
In Sec. 1915.502(a), OSHA refers readers to an outline for a model
fire safety plan, Appendix A, a non-mandatory appendix to this subpart.
The purpose of Appendix A 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, the
employer meets the minimum requirements of this section, provided the
employer's plan correctly follows the model outline and appropriately
addresses the particular conditions at the employer's specific
worksite.
Several comments were received regarding Sec. 1915.502(a) (Exs.
21-4; 21-5; 21-6; 21-7; 21-13; 22-2). They questioned whether an
employer that already has an integrated emergency action plan has to
also have a separate fire safety plan. And if so, they wanted to know
if the ``fire safety plan'' is meant to supersede all provisions under
Sec. Sec. 1910.38 and 1910.39 (Emergency Action Plans and Fire
Prevention Plans). Atlantic Marine recommended that a provision be
added which would accept an existing emergency action plan in place of
a fire safety plan if it already met the requirements of both Sec.
1910.38 and Sec. 1915.502(a) (Ex. 21-17-1-1).
OSHA notes that while the Agency was developing the Part 1915
subpart F standard, OSHA also revised Part 1910, Subpart E, Exit
Routes, Emergency Action Plans, and Fire Prevention Plans (67 FR 67949-
67965 (11/07/2002)), which apply to general industry workplaces as well
as shipyard employers. In the Part 1910 Subpart E rulemaking, OSHA
revised the previous requirements for exit routes using clearer
language so they are easier to understand by employers, employees, and
others who use them. In addition, these revisions reorganized the text,
removed inconsistencies among sections, and eliminated duplicative
requirements.
The employee emergency plans and fire prevention plans that are
covered by Sec. Sec. 1910.38 and .39 are similar to the fire safety
plans required by Sec. 1915.502. However, there are a few key
differences. Section 1910.38 requires the employer to plan for all
emergencies, not just fire emergencies. Therefore, the Sec. 1915.502
fire safety plan provisions do not adequately replace the Sec. 1910.38
requirements and shipyard employers will still be required to comply
with Sec. 1910.38. For Sec. 1910.39 Fire protection
[[Page 55674]]
plans, OSHA has determined that paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) are
covered by Sec. 1915.502, and shipyard employers are no longer
required to comply with these provisions of Sec. 1910.39. However,
paragraph Sec. 1910.39(c) contains provisions requiring employers to
identify and control certain fire hazards. These provisions are not
adequately addressed by Sec. 1915.502, so OSHA has determined that
shipyard employers will continue to be required to comply with the
Sec. 1910.39(c) provisions.
The Agency understands that shipyard employers who are currently
complying with Sec. Sec. 1910.38 and 1910.39 will now also be required
to comply with the additional requirements of Sec. 1915.502. However,
there is no need to produce three separate plans, unless the employer
wishes to do so. OSHA does not require employers to have separate plans
as long as the unified plan covers the applicable general industry
employee emergency plan and fire prevention plan provisions, as well as
the shipyard employment fire safety plan. OSHA will accept one unified
plan that meets all of the requirements in Sec. Sec. 1910.38, 1910.39,
and 1915.502.
Plan Elements
In Sec. 1915.502(b), OSHA sets forth the elements that the
employer must include in the fire safety plan. These are the
identification of significant fire hazards; 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, and departments for individuals who can be contacted
for further information about the plan.
Reviewing the Plan With Employees
In Sec. 1915.502(c), OSHA requires the employer to review the fire
safety plan with each employee within 90 days of the effective date of
this standard for employees who are currently working. It also requires
employers to review the fire safety plan with new employees upon
initial assignment and whenever the actions the employee must take
under the plan change because of a change in duties or a change in the
plan. Employees include those employees who perform hot work and fire
watches, fire responders, and all other employees who are in the
shipyard.
Additional Employer Requirements
In Sec. 1915.502(d), OSHA requires the employer to keep the plan
readily accessible for review by employees, their representatives, and
OSHA; review and update the plan whenever necessary but at least
annually; document that affected employees have been informed of the
plan; and give a copy of the plan to any outside fire response
organization that the employer expects may respond to fires at a
worksite.
NAVSEA commented on this paragraph:
The standard requiring a ``readily accessible'' ``updated'' fire
safety plan is vague. For example, will maintenance of training
records suffice as a fire safety plan? Recommend revising the
standard to better define the requirements of the fire safety plan.
(Ex. 22-15).
The Agency has used the terms ``readily accessible'' and
``updated'' in numerous OSHA standards. Definitions of ``readily
accessible'' include that in Sec. 1910.1200(f)(8) (``as long as no
barriers to immediate employee access exist'') and Sec. 1910.399
(``Capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal, or
inspections, without requiring those to whom ready access is requisite
to climb over or remove obstacles or to resort to portable ladders,
chairs, etc.''). Employees must be able to access the fire safety plan
at any time during the work shift. The plan may be in a notebook, on a
computer, or in any other appropriate format. The employer may have one
or more locations for all safety plans and related information.
Employees must know where to go to access this information and must be
able to obtain the information in a timely manner. The Agency believes
that the term ``readily accessible'' both in its plain meaning and
other applications in OSHA regulations is sufficiently clear that no
additional definition in Sec. 1915.509 is necessary.
Updating the plan when necessary would include when there is a
change in the system, the process, or in technology. This ensures that
the fire safety plan will be effective for the work that is being
performed at any given facility at any given time. OSHA understands
that a shipyard may be working on several types of vessels during a
year, and that each vessel may involve different hazards. The plan may
need to be updated to cover those changes as well. For instance, if a
shipyard only repairs barges, employees should be aware of the hazards
associated with that particular vessel. However, if a ferry is in the
shipyard for modifications or repair, the elements of the fire safety
plan may need revision to address the different fire hazards associated
with such a vessel. The employer must review and update the plan when
necessary but at least annually. Should the process, system, and
technology remain the same after one year, no update is needed.
However, the employer must review the plan to ensure that no changes
are needed. OSHA believes that the meaning of ``update the plan'' in
Sec. 1915.502(d)(2) is clear and this provision has been included in
the final standard.
In Sec. 1915.502(d)(3) of the proposed rule, OSHA proposed that
employers certify in writing that each employee has been informed about
the plan. Numerous commenters replied that this paragraph was not
justified. In addition, they believed that adding a certification
requirement adds no substantive protection for employees and is
inconsistent with the recommendation of the Committee, which
specifically approved a ``recordkeeping'' mechanism for ensuring
compliance (Exs. 21-10; 21-15; 21-16; 22-1; 22-6; 22-7; 22-8; 22-9; 22-
10; 22-11). Bath Iron Works stated that: ``The request for a company to
`certify in writing * * *' is unclear. Is the standard calling for a
record to be maintained and does an electronic data base of training
records meet the intent of the standards?'' (Ex. 21-3). All of these
commenters recommended revising this paragraph and using terms such as
``maintain records,'' ``maintain training documentation,'' or
``document training records.''
Additionally, NGNN stated that:
We do not believe that electronic media or other equally
effective means should be excluded as methods that an employer may
use to demonstrate to OSHA that all affected employees are informed
or trained on the fire safety plan. It is impractical for the
employer to be continually issuing a new ``certification'' each time
an employee is hired. Training records or other means may be used
more efficiently and without creating a redundant need for a
separate ``certification.'' OSHA should not dictate the method but
rather make it incumbent upon the employer to demonstrate that
employees have been informed of the plan. (Ex. 21-8).
It recommended that the paragraph read: ``[A]ssure that each
affected employee has been informed about the plan as required by
paragraph (c) of this section; and * * *.'' (Id.)
OSHA's intent was to require the employer to certify that its
employees have been informed, not to require a new certification for
each employee. However, OSHA agrees with the commenters that the
proposed language was unclear, and has changed the language to require
that the employer: ``[D]ocument that affected employees have been
informed * * *.'' Many employers have developed databases that track
the training that each
[[Page 55675]]
employee has completed. This form of documentation is acceptable, as is
any other effective method of documenting that all affected employees
have received the training.
In paragraph (d)(4), OSHA requires that the employer provide a copy
of the plan to any outside fire response organization that the employer
expects to respond to fires at its worksite. No comments were received
on this requirement. OSHA made minor editorial changes to this
paragraph in the final standard.
Contract Employers
In Sec. 1915.502(e), OSHA requires a contract employer's fire
safety plan to be in compliance with the host employer's fire safety
program. Because of the nature of the work at any given time, there may
be many employers within one particular shipyard. Safety and health
hazards may increase at such multi-employer worksites. 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 exist. The successful recognition of fire hazards and response
to fire emergencies requires all employers on the site to follow the
host employer's fire safety plan.
Several identical comments were received on this paragraph. The
concern was that the wording implied that there must be two distinct
and separate plans. ``The same degree of contractor safety can be
achieved if the contractor agrees, in writing if necessary, to comply
with the host employer's fire safety plan. This would ease the burden
on the contractor and promote consistency within the shipyard.'' (Exs.
21-3; 21-10; 21-15; 21-16; 22-1; 22-6; 22-7; 22-8; 22-9; 22-10; 22-11;
22-14). OSHA agrees with these comments. If the host employer's plan
includes the fire hazards the contract employer's employees will
encounter, it is acceptable for a sub-contractor to simply adopt or
follow the host employer's fire safety plan.
The Agency's intent was for contractor and sub-contractor employees
to be provided the same level of protection as the host employer's
employees while on site. It is also important that contractor employees
respond as effectively as other employees to evacuations. For example,
to follow the host employer's fire safety plan would include following
all of Sec. 1915.502, including reviewing the plan with employees,
keeping the plan accessible and updated, and certifying that all
employees have been informed of the plan. Recognizing hazards,
communicating about developing hazards and responding to emergencies in
a safe manner require 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 final rule focuses on reducing
the hazards associated with fuel sources and ignition sources by
removing any fuel source from the area where hot work is to be
performed. If that is not possible, then isolating the fuels by using
protection (shielding), posting a fire watch, or other positive means
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. Other materials may
also be present that have properties that may increase the hazards
associated with a fire, such as oxidizers and water reactive chemicals.
The Agency concludes that fires resulting from hot work can be
prevented through an authorization procedure and proper inspection of
the worksite before hot work. This involves identifying fire hazards
and implementing appropriate control measures that include removing
hazards, inerting spaces, shielding combustibles, or posting fire
watches. The Agency believes this approach will better protect shipyard
workers from fire hazards associated with hot work while also
reflecting the best practices of the industry.
The purpose of OSHA's requirement is to make sure that the employer
identifies all fire hazards in a hot work area and takes appropriate
action to prevent fires. This section relies heavily upon requirements
adapted from the existing Sec. 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. 19-3).
General Requirements
Paragraph (a) makes clear that the requirements cover all hot work
except for operations covered by Subpart B Confined and Enclosed Spaces
and Other Dangerous Atmospheres in Shipyard Employment. Subpart B
already covers the hazards of performing hot work in these areas.
Addressing them again in Subpart P would be duplicative and
unnecessary.
Paragraph (a)(1) allows the employer to designate certain areas for
hot work. In designating such areas, the employer must determine
through an inspection, that they are free from fire hazards. These
areas are typically designed for hot work, and include fabricating
shops, sub-assembly areas, and welding and burning areas within shops,
such as pipe, boiler, and sheet metal shops. In ``designated areas,''
hot work operations are regular and continuous as opposed to incidental
hot work operations occurring throughout the yard. Nonetheless, such
areas must be initially inspected to establish them as ``designated
areas'' and then maintained as such, as required in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section.
OSHA received comments relating to paragraph (a)(1). One group of
commenters argued that the word ``only'' should be removed from:
``[t]he employer may only designate areas for hot work'' because it
implies that an employer is limited to designating areas for hot work
(Exs. 21-4; 21-5; 21-6; 21-8; 21-13). OSHA agrees with these commenters
and has deleted ``only'' from the requirement.
Several comments were received objecting to the term ``potential
fire hazard.'' (Exs. 21-8; 21-10; 21-15; 21-16; 21-17-1; 22-1; 22-6;
22-7 through 22-11; 22-14) The commenters felt that this terminology
was too broad and vague, could be improperly interpreted in the field,
and should be clearly defined or changed. One suggestion was to
substitute the term with ``free of fire hazards,'' which would be
consistent with language used in Sec. Sec. 1915.503(a)(2)(ii) and
(b)(1). Another comment on this term was that: ``The use of the word
``potential'' is confusing and could be improperly interpreted in the
field. Either an area has a ``fire hazard'' or it does not.'' (Exs. 21-
10; 21-15; 21-16; 22-1; 22-6; 22-7 through 22-11). OSHA agrees with
these commenters that using the phrase ``potential fire hazards'' could
be misconstrued. Therefore, OSHA has changed the language to read
``free of fire hazards.''
Alabama Shipyard and Atlantic Marine-Mobile noted that the rule
does not specify how such areas should be designated, such as by
posting signs, inclusion in the fire safety plan, or some other
mechanism (Ex. 22-2). In response, OSHA notes that the Agency is
allowing employers flexibility in determining how to designate these
hot
[[Page 55676]]
work areas, and only requires that they do so in an effective manner.
Paragraph (a)(2) of this section contains the requirements for
authorization of hot work in non-designated areas. In Sec.
1915.503(a)(2)(i), OSHA requires that, before authorizing hot work in a
non-designated area, the employer must visually inspect the area where
hot work is to be performed, including adjacent spaces, to ensure that
the area is free of fire hazards, unless a Marine Chemist's certificate
or Shipyard Competent Person's log is used for the authorization. OSHA
believes that by requiring authorization before hot work is performed
in a non-designated area, the employer will pre-plan the operation and
thereby identify and control the hazards associated with hot work.
OSHA recognizes that, although Marine Chemists and Shipyard
Competent Persons have specific functions to perform under Subpart B,
the employer may also use them to assess whether designated and non-
designated hot work areas are free from fire hazards. However, the
employer is not required to do so. In a related comment, Bath Iron
Works remarked that:
Using the term `[the employer] must' implies that no one else
can do the inspection. A trained mechanic may be more effective than
a supervisor to perform such an inspection. Can the employer utilize
employees to perform the inspection prior to hot work if it is part
of their internal procedures and the employees are trained to do so?
(Ex. 21-3).
OSHA does not intend for the words ``employer must'' to be
interpreted to mean that a supervisory individual must conduct the
visual inspection. A supervisor, the hot worker, a fire watch, or some
other employee who is capable of performing the inspection may be
delegated to do the inspection. Of course, it remains the employer's
responsibility to ensure the area is free of fire hazards.
The paragraph requires that the inspection be performed to make
sure the area is free of fire hazards. If during the inspection,
combustible materials, (e.g., lunch bags, newspapers, coffee cups, or
rags) are within 35 feet of the hot work area, the employer can do a
number of things. The employer can remove the combustible materials
from the area, use barriers to safely isolate the combustible
materials, post a fire watch, or not perform the intended hot work.
Similarly, as OSHA explained in the proposal (67 FR 76224), the
employer is not required to produce a written authorization. While some
employers will choose to produce written authorizations, such as those
required by U.S. Navy contracts, others will choose to use verbal
authorizations. The Agency's intent is to enable the employer to
perform the steps and to assess the hazard each time it authorizes hot
work, but not to require a formal written permit. Therefore, in this
paragraph OSHA does not specify what form of authorization must be
used.
In Sec. 1915.503(a)(2), the employer can only authorize employees
to do hot work in areas that are free of fire hazards or where fire
hazards are controlled by physical isolation, fire watches, or other
positive means such as inerting. Decisions about authorizing hot work
must be based on an inspection by the employer, a Marine Chemist, or a
Shipyard Competent Person. Authorization for hot work is appropriate
only when such an inspection has shown that there are no uncontrolled
combustible or flammable materials in the area.
The note to paragraph (a)(2) states: ``[T]he requirements of
paragraph (a)(2) apply to all hot work operations in shipyard
employment except those covered by Sec. 1915.14.'' This note is a
reminder to employers that there are instances when a Marine Chemist, a
U.S. Coast Guard Authorized Person, or a Shipyard Competent Person, is
required to inspect a work area prior to hot work. Under these
circumstances, the employer would not need to re-inspect the same work
area. Conversely, the employer's inspection will not be accepted in
lieu of an inspection by a Marine Chemist, a U.S. Coast Guard
Authorized Person, or a Shipyard Competent Person when required by
Sec. 1915.14.
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 performing the hot work. As required in paragraph
(a)(2)(ii), control of fire hazards can be by physical isolation,
posting fire watches, or other positive means. For example, an employer
can achieve physical isolation of combustibles by shielding them or
moving them to an area at least 35 feet away from the hot work (see
definition of ``physical isolation''). The 35-foot vertical and
horizontal distance is consistent with current industry practice. Where
combustibles cannot 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.]
The Connecticut Department of Labor submitted the following
questions in regard to these requirements:
Pertaining to Sec. 1915.503, what is the covered employer's
responsibility regarding hot work and maintaining fire hazard free
conditions when the outside contractor is on covered property? * * *
How is such an outside contractor/employer treated through the
entire scenario under the standard for example, does this employer
need to be covered by the plan? (Ex. 22-4).
As discussed in the Scope section, contractors who perform work at
shipyards are required to comply with the OSHA shipyard standards,
including the requirements regarding hot work.
NAVSEA recommended that two classes of hot work be identified.
These would include most hazardous (stick welding and oxyfuel cutting)
and less hazardous hot work (grinding, brazing, and TIG welding) (Ex.
22-15). By separating these two, there would be separate fire watch
requirements. This commenter further stated that:
The hot worker may serve as his/her own fire watch for less
hazardous hot work with the supervisor's approval. In addition, they
must have an extinguisher and fire watch training. Recommend
differentiating between `aggressive' hot work and `other' hot work.
Two definitions of hot work would legitimize minor incidental gas
igniters in areas that are safe to enter, but not safe for
`aggressive' industrial hot work. (Id.)
OSHA has not incorporated this suggestion into the final rule. The
Agency believes that a single approach to ensuring safe hot work is
simple and effective, and that for any hot work where the area has not
been cleared of fire hazards, the employer must control the fire hazard
with physical isolation, fire watches, or other positive means.
Allowing the employer to designate particular areas for hot work
addresses many of the concerns expressed by NAVSEA. In addition, the
Agency does not allow the hot worker to also be the fire watch. Fire
watch issues are discussed below.
Specific Requirements
In Sec. 1915.503(b)(1), OSHA requires employers to keep all hot
work areas free of hazards that may cause or contribute to the spread
of fire. This requirement prevents the introduction of combustible or
flammable materials during the performance of hot work.
[[Page 55677]]
Even though safe conditions often exist at the start of the hot work
process, over the duration of the work, materials may be brought to the
site, creating a fire hazard. For example, one worker may be performing
hot work at the same time a worker from another job introduces
combustible or flammable materials within 35 feet of the hot work
operation. It is the intent of Sec. 1915.503(b)(1) that hazard
assessment be a continual process and not a singular, one-time event.
Therefore, after authorizing hot work, the employer must continue to
maintain a fire hazard free area. A note has been added to refer the
reader to Sec. 1915.181, Subpart L, for unexpected energizing and
energy release. In addition, the reader should refer to Sec. Sec.
1915.1000 to .1450, Subpart Z, for exposure to toxic and hazardous
substances. No comments were received on this paragraph, and the
proposed language is carried forward in the final rule.
Paragraph (b)(2) deals with fire safety issues related to fuel gas
and oxygen supply lines and torches that are typically used for cutting
and brazing. Paragraph (b)(2)(i) requires the employer to make sure
that no unattended fuel gas and oxygen hose lines or torches are left
in confined spaces. The final language in paragraph (b)(2)(i) has been
adapted from 29 CFR Parts 1910.252 and Sec. 1915.52 and NFPA 312-2000
Standard for Protection of Vessels During Construction, Repair, and
Lay-up (Ex. 20-4). This requirement reflects the current practice in
the industry, and was recommended by the Committee.
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 paragraph seeks to
eliminate the hazards associated with unattended fuel gas and oxygen
hoses or torches in confined spaces.
A number of comments were received on Sec. 1915.503(b)(2), stating
that these paragraphs were not the intent of the Committee (Exs. 21-4;
21-5; 21-6; 21-7; 21-13; 21-17-1-1; 22-2). Some commenters stated that
the Committee intended these requirements only for charged lines, not
lines in general. (Exs. 21-8; 21-17; 21-17-1). These commenters stated
that (b)(2)(i) would require the burner to leave someone to attend his
or her torch while the burner returned to the supply manifold to turn
on the gas. Two of these commenters raised the question of what OSHA's
practice will be with the ``no unattended * * * lines'' wording (Exs.
21-7; 21-13). Other than minor editorial changes, the requirement in
Sec. 1915.503(b)(2) is the language voted upon and approved
unanimously by the Committee. In addition, this will eliminate the
hazard of leaving leaking lines in a confined space. The provision does
not require two employees because the burner can turn on the gas and
transport the torch with a charged line to the confined space. If the
burner leaves the confined space, the burner can take the torch to an
enclosed space, where it can be left unattended for 15 minutes. The
final standard maintains the provision as proposed.
In Sec. 1915.503(b)(2)(ii), OSHA requires employers to prohibit
unattended charged fuel gas and oxygen hose lines or torches in
enclosed spaces for more than 15 minutes. The language in this
paragraph was adapted from 29 CFR Sec. 1910.252 and Sec. 1915.52 and
NFPA 312-2000 Standard for Protection of Vessels During Construction,
Repair, and Lay-up (Ex. 19-4). 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.
Paragraph (b)(2)(ii) received a number of comments related to what
would be considered ``charged.'' NGNN stated that:
NGNN considers the word ``charged'' to mean that the gas is shut
off at the supply manifold or cylinder and that the hose is not
required to be disconnected so as to maintain the integrity of the
original drop test. We are concerned that the proposed language in
1915.503(b)(2)(ii), if interpreted to mean that the line must be
disconnected during unattended periods of 15 minutes or more, would
permit the re-connection of the hose without positive verification
of line integrity and thus create the potential for gas to be
released in an enclosed space. Furthermore, we believe re-connecting
and performing a drop test with the hose and torch left in place
below deck is poor practice and even unsafe since gas could be
released while the torch operator is determining that the line is
open or leaking. Proven and equally or more protective alternative
methods, such as described below, are currently used that minimize
the risk in the event that hose integrity is compromised. (Ex. 21-
8).
In addition, NGNN recommended that the standard be revised to read:
``No unattended fuel gas or oxygen hose lines or torches are in
enclosed spaces for more than 15 minutes unless the gas supply manifold
or cylinder valves are closed and the hose lines are inspected or a
positive means is used to verify there is no gas leakage, prior to re-
opening the manifold or cylinder supply valves.'' (Id.)
Other commenters considered lines to be uncharged when:
[T]he gas supply [is] turned off at the manifold valve and/or
cylinder valve only, and hose connection [is] not disconnected from
the supply. This would allow the hose to not be charged with
pressure supplied by the manifold, or cylinder, only the pressure of
a drop test. The hose should not be disconnected, interfering with
the integrity of the original drop test, and requiring that the drop
test be redone. Disconnection of the hose could result in the
possibility of mistaken connections (Exs. 21-10; 22-1; 22-6; 22-13).
OSHA's interpretation of ``charged line'' is any line that is
connected to the manifold and filled with gas. Until all of the
contents are discharged from the lines, there is the potential of a
leak, a cut line, or a disconnection, all of which could contribute to
a fire. Therefore, we do not agree with NGNN's recommendation and are
maintaining this interpretation in the final rule.
OSHA finds that fuel gas or oxygen in charged hose lines has the
potential to empty into an enclosed space and create a fire hazard.
Therefore, the final rule includes the provision as proposed, which is
consistent with the Committee's recommendation, consensus standards,
and sound fire safety practice.
In paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of Sec. 1915.503, the employer must
ensure that employees disconnect all fuel gas and oxygen hoses at the
supply manifold at the end of each shift. This reduces the possibility
of releasing gas into an enclosed space and creating a fire hazard.
However, this procedure requires the employer to make sure that hoses
are safely reconnected. As described in the preamble to the proposed
rule (67 FR 76225), OSHA is concerned about the possibility of hooking
up at the supply manifold a different (wrong) hose whose torch end was
left hanging in an enclosed space. If the wrong hose is reconnected, it
may dispense oxygen and fuel gas into a space without anyone knowing,
thus creating a fire or explosion hazard.
OSHA deals with this potential problem in paragraph (b)(2)(iv) 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 or to open air and then disconnect the torch.
The other is to use a positive means of identification on the fuel gas
and oxygen hose lines before rolling out or extending the line to
assure that the proper extended lines are disconnected and that the
proper lines
[[Page 55678]]
will be reconnected, thus eliminating the hazard. Selecting the
positive means of identification for the fuel gas and oxygen hose lines
is left to the discretion of the employer. Examples of the positive
means of identification include color coding, stamped brass tags, and
stenciling of both ends of the line. Using performance language as an
alternative to requiring specific methods to identify the lines
provides employers with flexibility and will help to nurture developing
technology in these areas.
In an identical comment, several commenters objected to proposed
paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(A) and (B), as follows:
The preamble on pages 76225, paragraph 9 misrepresents current
industry practice with regard to the use of gauges to test for
compression integrity. Only one or two shipyards use gauges for the
integrity test. The implied necessity of gauges imposes a large cost
for many shipyards, and leaving the existing language in the final
rule makes it incumbent on the shipyard to demonstrate that their
practice exceeds a gauge as a means of ensuring integrity. Further,
the ``locking'' system described in the preamble ensures positive
identification, but does nothing to ensure integrity as implied in
the discussion. As a result, we recommend that the language in the
proposed rule be changed to:
``Extended fuel gas and oxygen hose lines are not reconnected at
the supply manifold unless the lines are given a positive means of
identification when they were first connected and positive means to
insure the integrity of fuel gas and oxygen burning system is
identified in employer fire plan'' (Exs. 21-4; 21-5; 21-6; 21-7; 21-
13; 22-2).
OSHA disagrees with these comments. As discussed above, the
employer could use stenciling of both ends of the line, color coding,
stamped brass tags, and so forth to identify the lines. Of course, the
lines must be identified at both ends regardless of how many sections
are joined to create the run. While the preferred way to maintain
integrity of the lines is the drop test using gauges, the employer may
use other methods such as testing a pressurized system by using soapy
water at all connections. The use of gauges may also be avoided
entirely by rolling hoses back to open air.
Therefore, apart from the minor editorial changes, the only
difference between the provisions of the final rule and the proposed
rule is that the sections have been renumbered from Sec.
1915.503(b)(iii)(A) and (B) to Sec. 1915.503(b)(iii) and (iv). Thus,
paragraph (iii) clarifies that the hoses must be disconnected, and
paragraph (iv) makes clear that two options are available to the
employer to assure that hoses are properly reconnected. The employer
may roll the lines back to the supply manifold or to open air and then
disconnect the torch, or the employer may keep the lines in place,
identify the hose lines to assure that the proper lines are reconnected
and check them for integrity. OSHA has also added a definition of
``drop test'' to the rule, as discussed in the definitions section
below.
Section 1915.504 Fire Watches
The fire watch requirements of this section are divided into three
parts: (a) The employer's written policy on fire watches; (b) the
posting of a fire watch; and (c) fire watch assignments.
Written Fire Watch Policy
Paragraph (a) of Sec. 1915.504 requires employers to create and
keep current a written policy on fire watches. This written policy must
specify the training that fire watches must receive (paragraph (a)(1));
the duties that they will perform (paragraph (a)(2)); the equipment
that they will be given (paragraph (a)(3)); and the personal protective
equipment (PPE) necessary for fire watches in the workplace (paragraph
(a)(4)). The PPE that fire watches will need is specified in 29 CFR
Part 1915 Subpart I Personal Protective Equipment. OSHA did not propose
a specific format for the written policy, and none has been included in
the final rule. OSHA recognizes that the employer needs the discretion
to tailor the policy to its workplace.
No comments were received on the proposed text in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(3); OSHA is adopting them in this final rule without
changes. One comment was received regarding paragraph (a)(4) of Sec.
1915.504. Atlantic Marine recommended that: ``[T]he wording of this
proposed rule be changed from `must be given' to `must be made
available' to ensure consistency with 29 CFR 1915.152(a)--Provision and
use of [personal protective] equipment'' (Ex. 21-17-1). Proposed
paragraph (a)(4) stated that employees ``must be given'' PPE as
required in Subpart I, and Sec. 1915.152(a) states that the employer
shall provide and shall ensure that each affected employee uses the
appropriate PPE. OSHA agrees with this comment and has revised this
provision to read: ``The personal protective equipment (PPE) must be
made available and worn as required by 29 CFR Part 1915, Subpart I.''
With this wording, the employer has an obligation to provide the proper
PPE to all fire watch employees. In addition, the employer must ensure
that employees are wearing and utilizing each piece of PPE
appropriately as required in Sec. 1915.152(a).
Posting Fire Watches
Paragraph (b) of Sec. 1915.504 requires the employer to post a
fire watch during hot work if any one of eight specific conditions is
present (each condition is discussed in detail below). OSHA's
requirements for this paragraph are based on the Committee's
recommendations.
Comments received stated that: ``There is a question of whether
this is an `and' or an `or' listing of fire hazards.'' These commenters
recommended changing the language to read: ``The employer must post a
fire watch if during hot work any of the following apply:'' (Exs. 21-3;
21-10; 21-15; 21-16; 22-1; 22-6; 22-7 through 22-11). OSHA agrees and
the regulatory text has been changed to read: ``The employer must post
a fire watch if during hot work any of the following conditions are
present.''
Atlantic Marine stated that the proposed rule ``[i]s cost
burdensome to small and medium-sized shipyards.'' (Ex. 21-17-1). It
requested that the eight conditions listed in Sec. 1915.504(b) be
replaced with the following language: ``An employer must post a fire
watch if a Marine Chemist, a Coast Guard-authorized person, or a
Shipyard Competent Person, as defined in 29 CFR 1915 Subpart B,
requires that a fire watch be posted.'' (Id.)
OSHA disagrees with this commenter. Paragraph (b) is a compilation
of conditions that could, according to the Committee, arise in any size
shipyard employment, including small, medium, and large shipyards. The
current Sec. 1915.52(b)(3) requires:
When the welding, cutting, or heating operation is such that
normal fire prevention precautions are not sufficient, additional
personnel shall be assigned to guard against fire while the actual
welding, cutting, or heating operation is being performed and for a
sufficient period of time after completion of the work to insure
that no possibility of fire exists. Such personnel shall be
instructed as to the specific anticipated fire hazards and how the
fire fighting equipment provided is to be used.
The new requirements for fire watches should not therefore pose any
additional burdens on employers, and will provide additional guidance
for employers to help them determine when a fire watch is necessary.
OSHA has concluded that these provisions are necessary and has included
them in the final standard.
Paragraph (b)(1) of Sec. 1915.504 requires 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
[[Page 55679]]
Standard for Fire Prevention During Welding, Cutting, and Other Hot
Work, (Ex. 19-3) and Sec. 1910.252(a)(2)(iii)(A)(3). The intent is to
have a performance oriented requirement. If a spark can get through an
opening and cause a fire, then the area must be protected. No change
has been made to this provision in the final rule.
Paragraph (b)(2) of Sec. 1915.504 recognizes 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. 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. No comments were received on
this paragraph. OSHA has adopted this paragraph without change.
Paragraph (b)(3) of Sec. 1915.504 includes the 35-foot
requirements (minimum distance of combustible materials from hot work)
from the Sec. 1910.252(a)(2)(vii) Subpart Q, Welding, Cutting and
Brazing and NFPA 51B-1999 Standard for Fire During Welding, Cutting,
and Other Hot Work (Ex. 19-3). In this paragraph, OSHA requires 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.
Numerous commenters objected to the 35 foot limit in this paragraph
(Exs. 21-10; 21-15; 21-16; 22-1; 22-6 through 22-11; 22-14). In a
representative comment, Bath Iron Works stated:
In many cases hot work can be safely performed within 35 feet
from unprotected, unshielded combustible materials because the
ignition source cannot physically reach the combustible material.
The material is considered to be protected by location. For
instance: The overhead of a space contains combustible insulation. A
welder needs to weld a deck penetration in the space. The welder's
sparks cannot physically reach the combustible materials on the
overhead because of their location. This is considered to be guarded
or shielded by location. It meets the intent of the standard by
adequately preventing fires. The standard does not explain that if
there is no potential for the hot work to ignite the combustible
material then the 35-foot rule is not applicable (Ex. 21-3).
NGNN added:
[W]e recommend performance oriented language that requires the
employer to ensure that combustibles are removed or protected when
they could be ignited by the intended hot work. Removing or
shielding combustible materials for a distance of 35 feet when it is
not necessary to prevent ignition places a significant financial
burden on the employer with no added degree of safety. We estimate
that the current language will cost NGNN approximately $28 million
dollars annually in labor alone. (Ex. 21-8).
NGNN recommended that paragraph (b)(3) be changed to read:
``Combustible materials that could be affected by the intended hot work
must be removed, protected with flame proof covers, or otherwise
shielded with metal or fire resistant guards or curtains so that
material will not be ignited by the hot work.'' (Ex. 21-8).
The Committee discussed the 35-foot distance at length and agreed
that if hot work is within 35 feet of combustible material in any way,
a fire watch must be posted. The 35-foot distance has been in
regulatory requirements and national consensus standards for many years
and reflects the current industry practice. The Agency has concluded
that such protection is reasonable and necessary, and has included the
35-foot rule in the final standard.
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 within
sandwich type construction is to inert the areas to make them safe for
hot work. Industry practice in these situations has been to also
provide fire watches with charged fire hoses or portable extinguishers
as fire protection measures.
OSHA received many comments on this paragraph expressing a concern
with the practice of inerting spaces (Exs. 21-8; 21-10; 21-15; 21-16;
22-1; 22-7 through 22-11). In a representative comment, Bath Iron Works
stated:
The Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Rule further
complicates matters by stating that ``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.'' OSHA should correct
this statement as it falsely implies that the employer can inert
flammable atmospheres. This promotes employers to prepare spaces
that contain flammable atmospheres without seeking a Marine
Chemist's assistance. This is a recipe for disaster if performed by
an unqualified individual. Flammable atmospheres are covered under
Subpart B where a Marine Chemist certificate is required for hot
work. NFPA 306, Standard for the Control of Gas Hazards on Vessels,
states that ``The Marine Chemist will approve the use of the
inerting medium and personally supervise introduction of the
inerting medium into the space being inerted, except in situations
where an inerting medium has been introduced prior to the vessel's
arrival at the repair facility.'' It recognizes the hazards
associated with the inerting process and places the responsibility
with the Marine Chemist. It would be in OSHA's best interest to
maintain this status quo (Ex. 21-3).
Recommendations for revising paragraph (b)(4) in the proposed
standard from several commenters included (1) removing the language
``or the space inerted;'' (2) adding the words ``or the space inerted
by a Marine Chemist or Coast Guard authorized person;'' and (3) adding
the words ``or the space inerted by a qualified individual'' and
identifying who is qualified. In addition, Bath Iron Works stated that
``[T]he summary and Explanation should be corrected as it improperly
states that employers can inert flammable atmospheres.'' (Ex. 21-3).
OSHA agrees with these commenters that inerting a space is an
activity that requires strict procedures to assure worker safety during
the operation. However, it was not OSHA's intent to imply that the
inerting of any space was an alternative. It was OSHA's intent to only
allow inerting within the inaccessible space inside a sandwich type
construction, not in any other confined or enclosed space. When an
employer is dealing with a confined or enclosed space, the requirements
for the use of a marine chemist under Subpart B continue to apply. To
make it clear that the inerting allowed in Sec. 1915.504 only applies
in limited circumstances, OSHA has reworded the Sec. 1915.504(b)(4)
requirements as follows: ``On or near insulation, combustible coatings,
or sandwich-type construction, that cannot be shielded, cut back or
removed, or on a space within a sandwich type construction that cannot
be inerted.''
Paragraph (b)(5) of Sec. 1915.504 addresses the potential hazards
of adjacent spaces. This paragraph is adapted from existing Sec.
1915.52(a)(3), which states: ``[S]ince 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 within the sandwich type construction, a fire watch
must also be
[[Page 55680]]
posted on the opposite side of the hot work. This requirement is
intended to address the increased fire hazard potential 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 spread or fall over
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. In these instances, two or more
employees may be needed to perform the fire watch. OSHA received no
comments on this paragraph; it is carried forward in the final rule
without change.
Paragraph (b)(6) of Sec. 1915.504 requires a fire watch during hot
work when it is 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 Agency requested
information from the industry on the use of the term ``bulkhead'' and
``deck'' since they refer only to vessels and vessel sections. Bath
Iron Works stated that these terms ``[a]re well known by the vast
majority of shipyard employees.'' From a large shipyard's view point,
bulkhead and deck is the proper method of identifying these
structures.'' (Ex. 21-3-1). OSHA agrees and has maintained these terms
in the final standard. No other comments were received on this
paragraph and OSHA has carried it forward in the final rule.
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. This provision takes into account the large number of
cable runs through vessel compartments. Although these cables must have
low flame spread and smoke production rates, they are still combustible
and have been responsible for the spread of fires. 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.
In the one comment received on this paragraph, Bath Iron Works
stated that:
Paragraphs (b)(5), (b)(6) and (b)(7) can be rolled into
paragraph (b)(4). They all address the potential for hot work to
ignite combustible materials and the prevention methods are already
listed in (b)(4), which are shielding, removal or inerting. It is
unclear why these 4 paragraphs were treated separately as they
appear to address the same hazard (Ex. 21-3).
Paragraph (b)(4) contains a general requirement to post a fire
watch when hot work is being performed on or near insulation,
combustible coatings, or sandwich type construction that cannot be
protected, while the three following paragraphs provide detailed
guidance for specific situations. Paragraph (b)(5) requires a fire
watch when there is a fire danger caused by combustible material on the
opposite side of the object on which hot work is being performed.
Paragraph (b)(6) requires a fire watch when hot work is being performed
in proximity to insulated materials and combustible materials or
coatings, and paragraph (b)(7) requires a fire watch when hot work is
being performed near unprotected combustible pipe or cable runs. OSHA
believes that these paragraphs provide additional information
describing the specific circumstances when a fire watch is needed, and
will be of value for employers, employees, and safety professionals who
are determining when a fire watch is required. OSHA has therefore
maintained the regulatory language in the final standard.
Assigning Employees To Fire Watch Duty
Paragraph (c) of Sec. 1915.504 outlines the assignment of fire
watch duty. Proposed paragraph (c)(1) of Sec. 1915.504 stated that the
employer must not assign other duties to an employee assigned to fire
watch. OSHA has further clarified in the final standard that an
employee must not be assigned other duties when designated as fire
watch by the employer while hot work is in progress. 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. The watch should not be distracted by having other duties
assigned at the same time.
Two commenters stated that:
[T]here are a variety of other duties that can be accomplished
by a fire watch that will not interfere with his/her ability to
perform their duties as a fire watch, and in some cases may serve as
a means of fire prevention, including activities such as removal and
management of potentially combustible material generated during the
hot work operations, assisting with welding lead and burning line
management, positioning of local area ventilation, etc. We suggest
that the language in Sec. 1915.504 (c)(1) be amended to read; ``The
employer may only assign other duties to an employee assigned to
fire watch, that will not interfere with the performance of a fire
watch's primary duty;''* * *. (Exs. 21-17-1; 22-2).
Another recommendation was: ``The employer may only assign other
duties to an employee assigned to fire watch, while the hot work is
[not] in progress.'' (Exs. 21-4; 21-5; 21-6).
A group of commenters stated:
[T]his entire section defines the duties of a fire watch. It
specifically states that the employer cannot assign any additional
duties to this employee. It appears to have been written with a
focus on a fire watch's reactions to a fire, rather than a fire
watch helping to prevent and/or eliminate the potential for fire.
Assigning a fire watch implies that a fire hazard exists and someone
has determined it is necessary to implement additional controls. The
proposed standard's description of a fire watch's duty must provide
latitude for the employer to permit the fire watch to maintain safe
conditions. Duties such as keeping fire resistant guards or curtains
wet, ensuring that fire resistant guards or curtains are maintained
in their original position and general housekeeping must be
permitted. Preventing fires should be an integral part of a fire
watch's duty. In the preamble, OSHA recognized the importance of
maintaining conditions. Recommendation: Rewrite Sec. 1915.504(c)(1)
``The employer must not assign other duties to an employee assigned
to fire watch that would prevent him or her from performing their
fire watch duties. Fire watch duties may include, for example,
watching for and extinguishing incipient fires, ensuring that fire
resistant guards or curtains are maintained in their original
position, general housekeeping and maintaining the conditions of the
area to eliminate combustible hazards' (Exs. 21-10; 21-15; 21-16;
22-1; 22-6; 22-7 through 22-11).
OSHA does not agree that fire watches should have other duties,
such as those mentioned in the comments, while hot work is in progress.
Fire watches must not have any distractions while performing their
duties. The point is not that they only react to actual fires, but that
they observe incipient fires as soon as possible. Accidents and
fatalities have occurred where fire watches have been busy with other
tasks or not directly observing employees performing hot work. It is
crucial that a fire watch have only one task at hand `` to watch for
and respond to fire hazards that occur during hot work. Should that
employee be distracted in any way by performing another task, the
safety of other employees is at risk.
OSHA does agree with the comments that under certain conditions the
fire watch should be able to assist with fire prevention duties. In
order to effectively carry out the fire watch duties, the fire watch
must not perform other duties during hot work. After the hot work is
[[Page 55681]]
completed, however, the fire watch must remain in the area for at least
30 minutes to assure that there is no further fire hazard, unless the
employer or its representative surveys the area and determines that
there is no further fire hazard. During this 30-minute period, the fire
watch can perform other fire prevention duties. When hot work is not
being performed, there is no longer a fire watch, and the fire watch
can perform other work.
If the employer has authorized hot work under Sec. 1915.503, the
area must be free of fire hazards and deemed safe for the hot work.
Therefore, the employer only needs to address a change in the original
conditions, such as combustible material or an out of position fire
curtain. Immediate action to maintain fire hazard free conditions under
Sec. 1915.503(b)(1) is required. In this situation, the fire watch is
allowed to stop the hot work and assist with fire prevention
activities, such as wetting down a fire blanket, repositioning a fire
curtain, and removing combustible debris that has entered the area.
OSHA has modified the language of Sec. 1915.504(c)(1) to prohibit the
assignment of other duties ``while hot work is in progress,'' and has
added a requirement in Sec. 1915.504(c)(2)(iii), (discussed below) for
the employer to authorize the fire watch to stop work, if necessary,
and restore safe conditions in the area.
Paragraph (c)(2)(i) requires that a fire watch must have a clear
view of all areas assigned. Depending on the specific circumstances,
two or more employees may be required in the fire watch to assure that
all areas are within view. For example, a fire watch employee may be
needed on each side of a bulkhead on which hot work is being performed.
This requirement also effectively precludes a hot work employee acting
as his or her own fire watch.
Paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of Sec. 1915.504 requires the employer to
ensure that employees assigned to fire watch duty can communicate with
workers exposed to hot work. Communication is important because a fire
watch employee may not be able to see a hot worker when, for example,
the fire watch employee is on the other side of a bulkhead from the hot
worker (a situation that may require two or more employees to perform
the fire watch). OSHA does not want to limit the means of
communication. For example, in the case of a fire watch employee 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 an electronic
communication system such as radio communication.
NGNN commented that an additional provision should be included in
this paragraph:
Duties of fire watch and hot workers should include maintaining
and reestablishing safe conditions if conditions are altered during
their absence. Recommend: that a new paragraph (2)(iii) be added:
``Ensures that safe conditions are maintained within the area
affected by the hot work.'' (Ex. 21-8).
OSHA agrees that this is a useful addition to the paragraph. In
addition to detecting potential fires, the fire watch should also
ensure safe conditions. Fire watches are trained to detect fires and
can attempt to extinguish any fire in the area if they are qualified
and able to do so. If they are not qualified or able to extinguish the
fire, they then must alert employees and activate the alarm, which will
start the evacuation procedures. All of these factors qualify as
ensuring safe conditions. As discussed above, OSHA agrees with the
above recommendation of adding a provision that would ensure that safe
conditions are maintained. This does not impose any additional
requirements on the employer, and is consistent with the remaining
provisions in Sec. 1915.504(c). Therefore, OSHA has added the
following provision at (c)(2)(iii) requiring the employer to assure
that employees assigned to fire watch duty: ``Are authorized to stop
hot work, if necessary, and restore safe conditions within the work
area.'' The remaining provisions in Sec. 1915.504(c) have been
renumbered.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of Sec. 1915.504 specified that the
fire watch must remain in the hot work area at least 30 minutes after
hot work is completed. The fire watch can 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 intent of this provision is
to encourage employers or their representative to use the hazard
assessment process throughout the work--at the beginning, middle (to
see if conditions have changed), and at the end (to determine how long
the fire watch may be needed). No comments were received on the
proposed provision and OSHA has carried it forward in the final rule
renumbered as (c)(2)(iv).
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of Sec. 1915.504 required that the
employer ensure that employees assigned to fire watch duty are trained
to detect fires that occur in areas exposed to hot work. (For a further
explanation, see the Training section at Sec. 1915.508.) Proposed
paragraph (c)(2)(v) of Sec. 1915.504 required 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 Sec. 1915.508
Training. The term ``incipient stage fire'' is defined in the general
industry fire protection standard 29 CFR 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.'' In its proposal, OSHA
specifically asked whether this definition needed to be in the final
standard (67 FR 76228). No comments were received on this subject.
However, the Agency has added this term into the definitions (see Sec.
1915.509 for discussion). Proposed paragraphs (c)(2)(iv) and (v) have
been carried forward unchanged in the final standard but have been re-
numbered as (c)(2)(v) and (c)(2)(vi).
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(vi) of Sec. 1915.504 required 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,
radioing across bulkheads, waving of arms, or making hand signals is
left up to the employer who will have 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 smoky situation, vocal communication would be more
appropriate. Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(vii) of Sec. 1915.504 stated
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. No comments were received
on these paragraphs, and they have been carried forward in the final
standard re-numbered as (c)(2)(vii) and (c)(2)(viii).
Paragraph (c)(3) of Sec. 1915.504 requires the employer to ensure
that employees assigned to fire watch are physically capable of
performing these duties.
[[Page 55682]]
During the Committee meetings, there was a concern that each member of
a fire watch be able to do his or her job. Although there was much
discussion on the issue, the Committee did not include a requirement
stating that the employer must make sure that personnel who are
expected to stand fire watch be capable of carrying out the duties of
fire watch. The Committee members believed that the employer would be
the best judge of physical capability and mental alertness of the fire
watch. OSHA, therefore, did not include such a requirement in its
proposal. Nevertheless, Bath Iron Works commented that:
There are no physical requirements for the fire watch to comply
with. This has been a common Labor/management conflict and a cause
for concern.* * * Management may select employees on ``light duty''
(not capable of lifting an extinguisher) to act as a fire watch, or
choose not to hire others that cannot perform the function as a
result of a physical limitation. In either case, only employees that
are physically capable of utilizing the fire extinguishing equipment
in a variety of scenarios such as: lugging an extinguisher down
inclined ladders or up vertical ladders, hauling hoses, etc. should
be assigned to this duty. By spelling out this requirement in the
standard we can be assured that employees performing this critical
function are those that are capably fit to do so. Recommend: Add a
new paragraph (c)(4) The employer shall ensure that each fire watch
is physically capable to carry out his/her expected functions (Ex.
21-3).
Although it is the employer's responsibility to select an
appropriate fire watch, OSHA feels that in performing this duty, the
employer must assure that the employee be in good enough physical
condition to fulfill his or her duties. For instance, an employee would
need to have the use of both arms to lift and correctly use a fire
extinguisher; be able to evacuate the work area if needed; and be able
to communicate adequately in the event of a fire. If an employee cannot
physically perform all of the duties of fire watch, the employer should
not put that employee in such a work situation. Therefore, an
additional requirement is being added to Sec. 1915.504(c). Paragraph
(c)(3) requires that: ``The employer must ensure that employees
assigned to fire watch are physically capable of performing these
duties.''
Section 1915.505 Fire Response
At present, OSHA does not have any specific requirements in Part
1915 for fire response in shipyard employment. This new section creates
a standard that addresses shipyard fire response and is derived from
the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.156 Fire brigades and from some of the
provisions in NFPA 1500-2002 Standard on Fire Department Occupational
Safety and Health Program (Ex. 19-5).
Responders to shipyard fires encounter a complex set of fire
hazards involving buildings, as well as vessels in dry-dock, underway,
afloat, or docked alongside a quay. Fire responders need to be prepared
to safely and successfully handle a wide range of fire scenarios, from
a flammable liquid storage room in a shipyard building to oil-soaked
rags in the engine room of a ship. The 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 may give off toxic
gases and smoke during a fire, electrical fires (involving energized
motors, circuit controls, transformers, or wiring), or even a rare
combustible metal fire (involving metals such as magnesium, or
titanium).
A fire response organization, as defined in section 1915.509
Definitions, may be provided by: (1) Fire brigades; (2) shipyard fire
departments; (3) private or contractual fire departments; and (4)
municipal fire departments.
Consistent with the recommendations of the Committee, OSHA is
requiring that the shipyard liaison's communication with an outside
fire response organization address facility and layout familiarization
and coordination protocols. Federal OSHA does not have jurisdiction
over state and municipal fire departments or volunteers so the standard
does not cover them. However, OSHA intends to promote coordination
between the shipyard and the outside fire response organization so they
can work together safely. OSHA believes that any fire response
organization that expects to respond to shipyard fires will benefit
from the coordination activities required by this standard, and will be
able to respond to fires faster, more effectively, and with greater
safety for the shipyard workers and their own fire response members.
OSHA also wants to be clear that shipyard fire responders do not
include support personnel responding at or near fires who have only
limited support functions to perform. These support functions may
include providing information to fire responders, and securing
utilities, such as electrical, ventilation, and compressed air and oxy-
fuel lines. These support personnel are not expected to fight fires but
to perform such tasks as shutting down gas lines or disconnecting
electrical service that support the fire response personnel.
NFPA submitted a statement in support of this provision.
NFPA also supports the proposed requirements in Sec. 1915.505
pertaining to Fire Response. The negotiated rulemaking committee
highlighted a number of issues during its deliberations related to
the complex fire hazards that could be encountered by any fire
response unit, whether shipyard personnel or outside fire response
organization. Shipyard fires could involve structural fires
associated with the shipyard buildings or the fires could occur on
the vessels during construction or repair. This fact about the
potential locations for fires demonstrates the complex nature of the
task facing any response unit. The Committee relied on OSHA's Fire
Brigade requirements from 29 CFR 1910.156 and those requirements
from NFPA 1500, Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health
Program to develop a comprehensive standard that specifically
addresses the shipyard fire response structure and function. NFPA
commends OSHA for using voluntary consensus standards where
applicable in this proposed standard. (Ex. 21-14).
Employer Responsibilities
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. Some shipyard employers,
typically 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 employers at small shipyards who must
rely largely on public fire protection. Because fire response
capabilities vary widely within the shipyard industry, each shipyard
employer must take responsibility for determining who will provide fire
response services and what those services will be.
Paragraph (a)(2)(i) of Sec. 1915.505 requires the employer to
create and maintain a written policy that describes the internal and
outside fire response organizations that the employer will use. In the
proposal, OSHA required a ``written statement or policy'' (67 FR 76248)
in Sec. 1915.505. Upon further review, OSHA was concerned that this
would cause some confusion with other requirements in subpart P.
Therefore, the Agency decided to alter the language in Sec. 1915.505
to read ``written policy'' in all requirements that were proposed as
``written statement or policy.'' This word change can be found in
paragraphs (a)(2(i) and (ii), (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), and
(b)(5) of Sec. 1915.505.
Paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of Sec. 1915.505 requires the employer to
create, maintain, and update a written policy that defines what
evacuation procedures
[[Page 55683]]
employees must follow if the employer chooses to require a total or
partial evacuation of the worksite at the time of a fire. No comments
were received on paragraphs (a)(1) to (a)(3), and OSHA is carrying them
forward in the final rule.
Required Written Policy Information
Paragraph (b) of Sec. 1915.505 describes the information that must
be included in the written policy required by this section. The written
policy must set forth the basis for operating an internal fire response
service, working with an outside fire response service, or using a
combination of internal and outside fire response. A key point is to
set out clearly the specific functions the fire response service is
authorized and expected to perform. Employers must establish the
specific functions that 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, and heavy rescue.
OSHA requires 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 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 apparatuses; a description
of the fire suppression operations at the employer's facility; training
requirements; expected fire response 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 requires 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 written policy. The policy must include the following:
The types of fire suppression incidents to which the fire response
organization is expected to respond at the employer's facility or
worksite (paragraph (b)(2)(i)); the liaison between the employer and
the outside fire response organization (paragraph (b)(2)(ii)); and a
plan for fire response functions (paragraph (b)(2)(iii)). This plan for
fire response functions must include procedures for obtaining help from
other fire response organizations (paragraph(b)(2)(iii)(A)),
familiarizing 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 (paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)). The plan must
also set forth how hose and coupling connection threads are to be made
compatible and where the adapter couplings are kept (paragraph
(b)(2)(iii)(C)), or, as an alternative, must state that the employer
will not allow the use of incompatible hose connections (paragraph
(b)(2)(iii)(D)).
OSHA further requires 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 paragraphs
(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
with the outside fire response organizations if given to fire response
employees (paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (v)).
Paragraph (b)(3) requires that the employer develop a written
policy that describes joint training activities if such training is
part of the employers plan. However, OSHA is not requiring fire
responders from an outside fire response organization to participate in
joint training because the standard does not apply to such outside fire
organizations. The employer must make sure that the internal and
external fire responses are coordinated so that the fire response is
safe and effective. It would be sensible and responsible to coordinate
training efforts between the two groups of fire responders. OSHA
strongly recommends that internal and outside fire responders
participate in joint training. In addition, it would be responsible to
have the outside fire response organizations involved in the
development of the written policy.
Paragraph (b)(4) of Sec. 1915.505 addresses OSHA's longstanding
policy that employers must ensure employee safety through evacuation in
case of fire. The employer's evacuation policy must 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 the general industry standards for
employee emergency plans and fire prevention plans (29 CFR 1910.38 and
.39).
Paragraph (b)(4)(i) requires that emergency escape procedures be
included in the written policy. 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 land-side facility. For
example, on a vessel at anchorage, escape routes from the vessel may be
more difficult to identify than those found in land-side facilities,
such as a machine shop, welding shop, cafeteria, employment office, or
similar worksite. Paragraph (b)(4)(ii) 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, as set forth in paragraph (b)(4)(iii). For example,
employees could be directed to report to a specific location after
evacuation. Another important element of the evacuation policy, found
in paragraph (b)(4)(iv), 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 written policy must indicate the key individuals by name, job
title, or department to be contacted for further information or
explanation of duties under the policy, paragraph (b)(4)(v).
Paragraph (b)(5) requires that the employer include a description
of the
[[Page 55684]]
emergency rescue procedures and names or job titles of the employees
who are assigned to perform rescue and emergency response. OSHA
received no comments on any of the requirements in Sec. 1915.505(b),
and is carrying them forward in the final standard.
Medical Requirements for Shipyard Fire Response Employees
Paragraph (c) of Sec. 1915.505 addresses the physical and medical
provisions for shipyard fire response employees. In paragraph (c)(1) of
Sec. 1915.505, OSHA requires that all fire response employees receive
medical examinations to assure that they are physically and medically
fit for the duties they are expected to perform. This approach is
consistent with NFPA 600-2000 (Ex. 19-6) and NFPA 1500-2002 (Ex. 19-5),
and with other OSHA standards, such as 29 CFR 1910.120 and 29 CFR
1910.156. Employees who perform fire response activities must be able
to perform them properly without jeopardizing the safety and health of
themselves and other firefighters. Fighting fires is a very hazardous
and strenuous job. Some employees may not be physically able to engage
in a fire response situation that would require hours of difficult and
heavy-duty work. OSHA is requiring the employee's physical and mental
fitness be in accord with the duties the employee will perform.
Paragraph (c)(2) of Sec. 1915.505 requires that fire response
employees who are required to wear respirators while performing their
duties meet the medical requirements of Sec. 1915.154 Respiratory
protection. This requirement is consistent with 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)
that requires employers whose employees use respirators to develop and
implement a respiratory protection program. One of the elements of a
respiratory protection program is providing medical evaluations for
employees who use respirators.
Paragraph (c)(3) of Sec. 1915.505 requires that the employer
provide all fire response employees with an annual medical examination.
Further, in paragraph (c)(4), medical records of fire response
employees must be kept according to Sec. 1915.1020 Access to employee
exposure and medical records. These proposed requirements are
consistent with existing regulations found in 29 CFR 1910.156 and 29
CFR 1910.134.
NGNN questioned the proposed requirements:
Does OSHA mean that a medical examination should be conducted to
identify any condition that may interfere with a fire fighter doing
his or her job, or does OSHA intend that shipyard fire fighters also
meet certain physical fitness standards? OSHA needs to address how
the medical examination/physical standards requirement applies to
shipyards that are unionized and have collective bargaining
agreements in place. Can implementation be delayed for the remainder
of the current agreement's term? Or until a fixed date, or are
employers and unions required to reopen and negotiate impact and
implementation of the new standards? This requirement should receive
much more detailed consideration. (Ex. 21-8).
The employer is responsible for ensuring that employees are
qualified for the fire response activities. The fire response employees
must be able to perform their duties and not create another hazard by
jeopardizing the safety and health of themselves or others. OSHA has
not set specific physical fitness standards that the fire response
worker must meet. It is up to the employer to determine the physical
fitness level that will be needed to keep each fire response person
safe. This will depend upon the duties each of them is assigned.
Likewise, OSHA has not included any provisions to account for
existing union agreements. The employer is responsible for addressing
any issues related to union bargaining agreements. Employees must be
protected equally under the standard, whether or not a union contract
is in effect. In summary, without an annual examination, the employer
can not be sure that the fire responder is able to do the job at hand.
Therefore, OSHA has adopted this provision as proposed.
Organization of Internal Fire Response Functions
Paragraph (d)(1) of Sec. 1915.505 requires the employer to
organize its fire response functions to ensure that there are enough
resources to safely conduct emergency operations at the site. This
language is consistent with the goals and language of paragraph 4.1.1
of NFPA 1500-2002 (Ex. 19-5) addressing the fire department's
organizational statement. No comments were received on paragraph (d)(1)
and OSHA has included it in the final rule as it was proposed.
In paragraph (d)(2) of Sec. 1915.505, OSHA proposed that the
employer: ``[s]et up written administrative regulations, standard
operating procedures, and departmental orders for fire response
functions.'' The proposed language was based on Chapter 4 of NFPA 1500-
2002 addressing the organization of fire response providers and Chapter
2.1 of NFPA 600-2001 addressing the general administration of
industrial fire brigades.
No comments were received on paragraph (d)(2). However, upon
reconsideration, OSHA has decided that the requirement was not easily
understood, and it was unclear how it differed from the written policy
requirements for internal fire response proposed at Sec.
1915.505(b)(1). Therefore, OSHA has modified Sec. 1915.505(d)(2) using
NFPA 600-2001 to require employers to: ``Establish lines of authority
and assign responsibilities to ensure that the components of the
internal fire response are accomplished.'' This language provides a
clearer description of the provision's requirements than the terms
``administrative regulations'' and ``departmental orders.'' There is no
need to include a requirement for ``standard operating procedures,'' as
they are already required in Sec. 1915.505(b)(1).
In paragraph (d)(3) of Sec. 1915.505, OSHA requires the employer
to set up an Incident Management System (IMS) to coordinate and direct
fire response functions. This system must include specific fire
emergency responsibilities; how the employer will account for all fire
response employees during an emergency operation; and what resources
would be offered by outside organizations. This is consistent with the
goals and language found in paragraph 8.1 of NFPA 1500-2002.
The Connecticut Department of Labor raised a question regarding the
provision, asking: ``Why does the proposed standard change the
customary verbiage of incident command system to incident management
system? Will this confuse fire departments that will also be involved
in the firefighting?'' (Ex. 22-4).
While the Incident Command System (ICS) term is customary language
often used by firefighting professionals, OSHA proposed to use the IMS
term to be consistent with the terms currently in use by firefighting
organizations and training institutions. The most recent NFPA standards
use the IMS term, including NFPA 1500-2002 Fire Department Occupational
Safety and Health Program, NFPA 600-2000 Requirements for All
Industrial Fire Brigades, and NFPA 1561-2000 Emergency Services
Incident Management System. In addition, the IMS term is commonly used
by organizations that train firefighters. For example, individual
courses on incident management are currently offered by the Maryland
Fire and Rescue Institute (http://apps.mfri.orrg) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency National Fire Academy (http://www.usfa.fema.gov/fire-service/nfa/nfa.shtm
). Because the IMS is the
[[Page 55685]]
preferred term, OSHA is using the IMS term in the final rule.
OSHA is also modifying the proposed definition of IMS in Sec.
1915.509 to match the definition used by NFPA in NFPA 1500-2002, which
is: ``A system that defines the roles and responsibilities to be
assumed by personnel and the operating procedures to be used in the
management and direction of emergency operations; the system is also
referred to as an incident command system (ICS).'' This modification
does not change the meaning or intent of the proposed term, and is more
consistent with the NFPA's use of IMS.
Paragraph (d)(4) of Sec. 1915.505 requires that employers provide
specified information to the outside fire response organization to be
used. These provisions are consistent with existing OSHA requirements
(29 CFR 1910.120 Hazardous waste operations and emergency response and
29 CFR 1910.156 Fire brigades). No comments were received on paragraph
(d)(4), and it is included in the final standard.
Personal Protective Clothing and Equipment for Fire Response Employees
Paragraph (e) of Sec. 1915.505 contains the requirements for
providing personal protective clothing and personal protective
equipment for shipyard fire response personnel. Paragraph (e)(1)
requires that the employer must provide fire response employees with
hazard specific personal protective clothing and equipment at no cost
to the employees. The employer must also make sure that each employee
wears the appropriate personal protective clothing and equipment that
offers protection from the hazards to which that employee is likely to
be exposed. This is consistent with the language found in Chapter 7 of
NFPA 1500-2002 (Ex. 19-5). It is also consistent with existing OSHA
standards.
In Sec. 1915.505(e)(2), OSHA states the requirements for thermal
stability and flame resistance or protective clothing. Paragraph
(e)(2)(i) requires the employer to make sure that each fire response
employee exposed to flame hazards wears clothing that minimizes the
extent of injury that the fire response employee would sustain.
Paragraph (e)(2)(ii) specifically prohibits the wearing of clothing
made from acetate, nylon, or polyester, either alone or in blends,
unless it can be shown that the fabric can withstand the flammability
hazard that could be encountered, or that the clothing is worn in such
a way to eliminate the flammability hazard that may be encountered.
This language is consistent with the language in existing OSHA
standards and in paragraph 7.1.6 of NFPA 1500-2002 (Ex. 19-5).
Paragraph (e)(3) of Sec. 1915.505 addresses respiratory protection
for shipyard fire response employees. Under paragraph (e)(3)(i), the
employer must provide self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) to all
shipyard fire response employees who are involved in emergency
operations in an atmosphere that is or may become immediately dangerous
to life or health (IDLH), or is unknown. This language is consistent
with existing OSHA standards and paragraph 7.8.7 of NFPA 1500-2002 (Ex.
19-5).
Under paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of Sec. 1915.505, the employer must
provide SCBAs to fire response employees performing emergency
operations during hazardous chemical emergencies that will expose them
to airborne chemicals. OSHA recognizes that there may be a potential
for employee exposure to hazardous chemicals during fire response
emergencies due to the nature of shipyard employment. This requirement
would limit employers to the use of SCBAs for this type of chemical
exposure.
Under paragraph (e)(3)(iii) of Sec. 1915.505, the employer must
provide either SCBA or respiratory protective devices to fire response
employees who perform or support emergency operations that will expose
them to hazardous chemicals. The SCBA or respiratory device must be
certified as required in Sec. 1910.134, and as required by NIOSH under
42 CFR Part 84 as suitable for the specific chemical environment.
Under paragraph (e)(3)(iv) of Sec. 1915.505, the employer must
ensure that additional outside air supplies used in conjunction with
respirators be positive pressure systems and certified by NIOSH under
42 CFR Part 84. Again, this is consistent with existing OSHA standards
and paragraph 7.10.1.1 of NFPA 1500-2002 (Ex. 19-5). No comments were
received on paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (e)(3)(iv) and OSHA has
adopted them as proposed.
Under paragraph (e)(3)(v) of Sec. 1915.505, the employer must
provide SCBAs that meet the requirements of NFPA 1981-1997, Standard on
Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus for the Fire Service
(Ex. 19-7). This is standard equipment for all fire response
organizations throughout the country.
NAVSEA stated that: ``The latest version of National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) 1981, Standard on Open-Circuit Self-
Contained Breathing Apparatus for Fire and Emergency Services is 2002
versus 1997.'' (Ex. 22-15). In the proposed rule (67 FR 76231). OSHA
proposed using the 1997 version. Thus, adequate notice and comment on
updating to the 2002 version has not been provided. As a result, the
1997 version is referenced in Sec. 1915.505(e)(3)(v) in the final
standard. With publication of this document, OSHA recognizes that
several of the NFPA standards have been revised since the proposed rule
was published. OSHA intends to publish a direct final rule to update
the references to the most recent NFPA standards in the near future.
In Sec. 1915.505(e)(3)(vi), OSHA requires that the employer ensure
that the establishment of a respiratory protection program and use of
respiratory protective equipment is in compliance with Sec. 1915.154
Respiratory protection. Similar requirements are found in 29 CFR
1910.134, and 29 CFR 1910.156 for general industry. The Connecticut
Department of Labor raised the following:
Sec. 1915.505(e)(3)(vi) mandates compliance with 29 CFR
1915.154, which in turn incorporates by reference 29 CFR 1910.134.
Does the language of this subsection of the proposed section which
mandates compliance with the respiratory protection program of Sec.
1910.134, include the procedures for IDLH atmospheres referenced in
Sec. 1910.134(g)(3) and (4) of the respiratory standard, including
the requirement for what's known as two in and two out? (Ex. 22-4).
As the State of Connecticut points out, OSHA states in Sec.
1915.154 that respiratory protection for shipyards is covered under 29
CFR 1910.134. Therefore, shipyard employment is covered by the entire
section, which would include Sec. 1910.134(g) as well as all other
provisions of Sec. 1910.134.
Paragraph (e)(4) of Sec. 1915.505 addresses personal protective
equipment for fire response employees who are exposed to the hazards of
interior structural firefighting within shipyard employment. The
employer must provide, at no cost to the employee, helmets, gloves,
footwear, and protective hoods, and either protective coats and
trousers, or protective coveralls that meet the applicable
recommendations in NFPA 1971-2000 Standard on Protective Ensemble for
Structural Fire Fighting (Ex. 19-8). Paragraph (e)(4) is based upon
Chapter 7 of NFPA 1500-2002 (Ex. 19-5). OSHA received no comments on
this paragraph, and the proposed language is carried forward in the
final standard.
Under paragraph (e)(5), the employer must, at no cost to employees,
supply all fire response employees who are exposed to the hazards of
proximity
[[Page 55686]]
firefighting with the appropriate protective proximity clothing that
meets the applicable requirements of NFPA 1976-2000, Standard on
Protective Ensemble for Proximity Fire Fighting (Ex.19-9). Only
shipyard employees who engage in operations that expose them to the
intense radiant heat of a proximity firefighting incident (the
proximity hot zone) must be equipped with specialized proximity
firefighting protective clothing. No comments were received on this
provision and OSHA has adopted it as proposed.
Under paragraph (e)(6) of Sec. 1915.505, the employer must provide
a Personal Alert Safety System (PASS) device to each fire response
employee involved in firefighting operations. The PASS devices must
meet the recommendations in NFPA 1982-1998 Standard on Personal Alert
Safety Systems (PASS) (Ex. 19-10). This requirement is consistent with
paragraph 7.13.1 of NFPA 1500-2002 (Ex. 19-5) and no comments were
received. The provision is adopted as proposed.
A PASS is a device that is attached to or is an integral part of
self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). It automatically sounds a
distinctive alarm (some units also display a flashing strobe light) if
a fire response employee becomes immobile for a pre-determined period
of time (usually 30-40 seconds). For example, the device would be
activated in the event a fire responder becomes incapacitated from
structural collapse or runs out of breathing air. Fire response
employees who might become trapped or lost can also activate the device
manually to help searchers locate them. The shrill alarm allows
rescuers to locate the wearer quickly in dark or heavy smoke
conditions. The alerting sound of a PASS can easily be distinguished
from a low air supply alarm emitted by a SCBA. PASS devices are now
considered standard issue for fire fighters and are recommended by NFPA
1982-1998. (Ex. 19-10).
Section 1915.505(e)(7) addresses life safety ropes, body harnesses,
and hardware. No comments were received on these provisions and they
are being adopted as proposed. Under paragraph (e)(7)(i), OSHA requires
all life safety ropes, body harnesses, and hardware used by fire
response employees for emergency operations to meet the applicable
requirements of NFPA 1983-2001, Standard on Fire Service Life Safety
Rope and System Components (Ex. 19-11). This is consistent with Subpart
I of this Part and paragraph 7.14.1 of NFPA 1500-2002 (Ex. 19-5). Under
paragraph (e)(7)(ii) of Sec. 1915.505, the employer may allow only
Class I body harnesses to be used to attach fire response employees to
ladders and aerial devices. This is consistent with NFPA 1983-2001 (Ex.
19-11). Under paragraph (e)(7)(iii), the employer may only allow Class
II and Class III body harnesses to be used by fire response employees
for fall arrest and rappelling operations. This is consistent with NFPA
1983-2001 (Ex. 19-11). No comments were received on paragraph (e)(7)
and OSHA has carried it forward in the final rule.
Equipment Maintenance
Paragraph (f) of Sec. 1915.505 addresses the maintenance of
personal protective equipment and fire response equipment. Under
paragraph (f)(1), the employer must inspect and maintain personal
protective equipment used to protect fire response employees to ensure
that it provides the intended protection. Such inspection and
maintenance is consistent with OSHA's personal protective equipment
standards, Sec. 1910.132.
Under paragraph (f)(2), the employer must test and maintain fire
response equipment consistent with sound safety practices and the
requirements for tools and equipment found in Chapter 7 of NFPA 1500-
2002 (Ex. 19-5). Paragraph (f)(2)(i) requires the employer to keep fire
response equipment in a state of readiness. In paragraph (f)(2)(ii),
the employer must make sure that all fire hose coupling and connection
threads are standardized throughout a facility and on vessels and
vessel sections by providing the same type of hose coupling and
connection threads for hoses of the same or similar diameter.
If the employer uses an outside fire organization for fire
response, and the employer expects them to use the fire response
equipment belonging to the employer, then under paragraph (f)(2)(iii),
the employer must ensure that either all of its facility's hose and
coupling connection threads are the same as those used by the outside
fire authority or that suitable adapter couplings are supplied. This
requirement is consistent with paragraph 9.3 of NFPA 14-2000 (Ex. 19-
12). The Agency did not receive any comments on this paragraph, and the
provisions are being adopted as proposed.
Section 1915.506 Hazards of Fixed Extinguishing Systems on Board
Vessels and Vessel Sections
This section addresses the hazards associated with fixed
extinguishing systems on vessels and vessel sections that could create
a dangerous atmosphere when such systems are activated. Of particular
concern is the incorrect or inadvertent activation of these systems.
Fixed fire extinguishing systems at land-side facilities are covered by
the next section of this proposed subpart, Sec. 1915.507 Land-side
fire protection systems.
The hazards associated with the use of fixed extinguishing systems
on vessels and vessel sections have long been recognized by the United
States Coast Guard as evidenced by Coast Guard Commandant Notices and
Instructions that date from 1978. The International Maritime
Organization (the United Nations' specialized agency responsible for
improving maritime safety and preventing pollution from ships) has also
addressed this issue by issuing regulations that are part of the
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS).
Testing vessels' fixed extinguishing systems has led to several
fatalities. In October 1996, aboard the Italian flag ship SNAM
PORTVENERE, an American Bureau of Shipping surveyor and five shipyard
technicians were killed when carbon dioxide (CO2) was
released accidentally from a fixed fire extinguishing system that was
being tested. On May 3, 1993, while a contractor was testing a low-
pressure CO2 system aboard the M/V CAPE DIAMOND that
protected the ship's engine room, CO2 was discharged
accidentally, causing the deaths of a Coast Guard marine inspector and
a shipyard contractor. Additionally, an intentional activation of a
manual CO2 extinguishing system aboard the Australian naval
vessel HMS APPLELEAF caused the accidental death of four persons. These
incidents were attributed to human error in which the discharge of
CO2 extinguishing systems protecting spaces aboard vessels
was allowed to occur while employees were working inside.
This section has gone through some modifications since the
proposal. The section has been modified in several areas to address
concerns raised by commenters, and to assure that the section
adequately addresses the hazards associated with fixed extinguishing
systems on board vessels and vessel sections.
Employer Responsibilities
The Committee recognized, and OSHA agrees, that although the
casualty history reveals problems only with CO2 systems,
similar hazards exist for the use of new extinguishing agents and
application methods. Therefore, the employer's responsibilities under
paragraph (a) of Sec. 1915.506 apply to all fixed extinguishing
systems on vessels
[[Page 55687]]
and vessel sections that may result in a dangerous atmosphere if
discharged. It is very likely that the only systems that may be
affected by this standard will be those that employ gaseous or two-
phase (gaseous/liquid) extinguishing agents. However, by including all
systems that may create a dangerous atmosphere when activated, the
standard is broad enough to cover future systems and extinguishing
agents. Examples of future possibilities include systems employing dry
chemical extinguishing agents (these systems currently exist but are
not typically installed on vessels), combination dual water/dry
chemical systems, and systems using Halon alternative agents.
Several comments were received on paragraph (a) of Sec. 1915.506,
including:
The proposed standard does not recognize differences between
fire suppression systems and different extinguishing agents.
Alternatives to CO2 often do not present the same hazards
as fixed CO2 systems. * * * Rewrite 1915.506(a) ``* * *
The employer must comply with the provisions of this section
whenever employees are exposed to fixed extinguishing systems
charged with materials that could create hazardous atmosphere when
activated aboard vessels and vessels sections, regardless of
geographic location. Fixed systems that do not cause hazardous
atmospheres when activated, including those charged with foam, inert
materials, or water sprinklers, are not subject to this section.''
(Exs. 21-10, 21-15, 21-16, 22-1, 22-6, 22-7 through 22-11).
NGNN stated:
NGNN agrees with the need to address controls required for
working in spaces with fixed extinguishing systems. We believe that
systems should remain armed only when the risk to the vessel and
workers outweighs the risk if the system were to be inadvertently
activated by the work being performed. Therefore, NGNN has
instituted procedures and training to ensure work can be safely
performed in those rare cases when a system must remain armed.
However, our procedures recognize the greater risk posed by a carbon
dioxide system versus less hazardous extinguishing media, such as
halon. We recommend that OSHA consider the differences in various
shipboard fire suppression systems that do not present the same risk
as carbon dioxide systems. Some systems use the same compounds used
in computer rooms across the country and present far less risk than
carbon dioxide systems. (Ex. 21-8).
Great Lakes stated that:
Sec. 1915.506 (a) of the proposed rule introduces ambiguity.
The rule should be clarified so that ``exposure to fixed
extinguishing systems that could create a hazardous atmosphere''
refers to the properties of the agent itself and not to by-products
of the combustion process or extinguishment. Actual fire events
should be treated separately and require crew egress from the
affected space prior to extinguishing system discharge, as required
by fire standards. Section 1-6.1.2 of NFPA 2001 standard for clean
agent fire extinguishing systems deals with the issue of human
exposure to the agent itself. While exposure to any clean agent
should be minimized, the standard does specify safe human exposure
times to clean agents at various design concentrations in normally
occupied spaces. In the case of HFC-227ea (the active ingredient in
FM-200 brand clean agent) the standards allow for installation of
systems in occupied spaces up to the LOAEL (Lowest Observable
Adverse Effect Level) of 10.5% v/v. In Table 1-6.1.2.18 of NFPA
2001, the recommended exposure time to HFC-227ea for concentrations
of 10.5% v/v or less is five minutes. It should also be noted that
HFC-227ea is approved by U.S. FDA as a replacement for ozone-
depleting CFC propellants in asthma inhalers. In contrast, the
standard for carbon dioxide extinguishing agent (NFPA 12) prohibits
human exposure to the agent due to its inherent lethality. The time
limit for safe human exposure is determined by the toxicological
profile of each agent. Therefore, we recommend the proposed rule be
revised to base worker exposure to any fire extinguishing agent on
the agent's human safety profile. We also recommend the proposed
rule direct shipyard employers to follow safety procedures contained
in the NFPA standard for their chosen fire suppression agent. (Ex.
22-5).
While developing this standard, the Committee discussed whether to
include requirements for other systems that do not cause dangerous
atmospheres when activated, such as foam and automatic water sprinkler
systems. After extensive discussion, the Committee decided that a
standard for these systems was not necessary because they are not
typically relied upon on board vessels and vessel sections, and they do
not pose a significant safety and health threat to employees. The
Agency agreed and proposed to cover only systems that could create a
hazardous atmosphere when activated. Both NGNN and Great Lakes
supported the provision not applying when the extinguishing agent is
not hazardous. OSHA continues to believe that this is the proper
approach and has not altered this provision in the final standard. It
is up to the employer to determine when a dangerous atmosphere will be
created, either by the properties of the extinguishing agent, or the
byproducts that may be produced when it is used. If a dangerous
atmosphere will be created, the employer must take action under Sec.
1915.506 to protect its employees.
Requirements for Automatic and Manual Systems
Under paragraph (b) of Sec. 1915.506, the employer must protect
its employees who may be exposed to a dangerous atmosphere by a fixed
fire extinguishing system by taking one of two actions. First, the
employer may physically isolate the system by disconnecting or
blanking, or by using other positive means to prevent the system's
discharge. This is possible for most types of shipyard work, and is the
preferable method of protection because when the system is isolated,
employees cannot be exposed to a dangerous atmosphere. However, OSHA
recognizes that some shipyard work must be conducted with the system
activated. In those situations, the employer must take the second form
of action by ensuring that employees are trained to recognize the
system's discharge and evacuation alarms and the appropriate evacuation
routes, and by ensuring that they are knowledgeable about the
extinguishing system, its components, and its hazards.
In paragraphs (b), (e), and (f) of Sec. 1915.506, the term
``physically isolated'' refers to physically preventing the
extinguishing agent from entering the work area. This is typically done
by installing a blank (a flat piece of metal between two flanges) in
the supply line of the extinguishing system so that the extinguishing
agent can not possibly be released into the protected area.
Several comments were received on proposed Paragraph 1915.505(b).
Bath Iron Works stated:
There is confusion as to how the five paragraphs in this section
fit together. The section addresses work in a space equipped with
fixed extinguishing systems. It mandates that the system be
physically isolated (para 1) or that employees be trained to
recognize systems discharge, evacuation alarms and escape routes
(para 2). It appears that there are three additional requirements
(para 3, 4 and 5) to the options listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 and
that all three must occur, as they are separated by the word
``and.'' If the system is isolated, as in paragraph 1, paragraphs 2-
5 should not apply? After all there cannot be a discharge if the
system is isolated. If employees are trained, as in paragraph 2,
then all the following paragraphs should apply because the system is
still energized and represents a potential hazard if activated. It
appears that the word ``and'' was left off the end of paragraph 2.
Recommend: Add the word ``and'' to the end of paragraph (b)(2). (Ex.
21-3).
OSHA agrees with Bath Iron Works that the proposed regulatory text
was confusing because it combined ``and'' statements and ``or''
statements in a way that was difficult to follow. Therefore, the Agency
has changed the regulatory text to clarify the requirements. Paragraph
(b) of the final rule only includes the requirements for physical
isolation of the system, or employee training, as discussed above.
Paragraph
[[Page 55688]]
(b) now contains the provisions that were proposed as paragraphs
(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(5). Paragraph (d) includes the actions that
must be taken if activation of the system could result in a positive
pressure in the protected space. Paragraph (d) now contains the
provisions that were proposed as paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4). The
remaining paragraphs of section 1915.506 have been renumbered
consecutively.
Bath Iron Works stated:
It is not fully understood why work cannot be accomplished in a
space that is protected by a fixed extinguishing system. The systems
are installed to protect employees and equipment and there is
``work'' that does not pose a threat of an extinguishing system
being activated. On the other hand, it is clearly understood that
work that has the potential to activate an extinguishing system
poses a real threat. If there is no threat why should any of the
requirements in this section apply? The term ``work'' needs to be
expanded to qualify it as ``work that has the potential to cause
system activation'' or some other qualifying phrase. To expect the
system to be physically isolated when routine work is to be
performed in the space, without qualifying the type of work is
unrealistic. Example: Prior to the vessel going to sea/sea trials
all systems are operational, including fixed extinguishing systems.
Typical work assignments at this stage of construction are to touch
up paint that has been disturbed, or stencil piping systems. With
all systems up and running, the protection of the fire extinguishing
system is a safety feature that should not be eliminated. This
section requires that it be deactivated, or that paragraphs 2
through 5 are complied with. Neither is feasible, nor do they
provide additional protection to the employee''. * * * Revise
paragraph (b) to further define the intent of work. `Before any work
that has the potential to cause systems activation * * * (Ex. 21-3).
NASSCO stated: ``The term `any work' does not consider the work
done during sea trials and other test activities that would not
activate the system. We recommend that the paragraph read: `any work
that could activate the system' or `any hot work.' '' (Ex. 22-14).
OSHA believes that this comment relates to the confusion caused by
the construction of the proposed regulatory text. The Agency concludes
that the qualification in paragraph (a) limits the applicability of
this section only to systems that create hazards. In addition, the
employer may conduct work with the system activated, so long as
employees are trained pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(i) of Sec.
1915.506. As discussed above, the employer must take one of two courses
of action. First, the employer could physically isolate the system or
have other positive means to prevent the system from discharging.
Second, the employer could train employees on the system's discharge
and the associated hazards, and the evacuation alarms and routes.
If the employer chooses the second option, paragraph (b)(2)(i) of
Sec. 1915.506 requires employees to be trained to recognize fire
extinguishing systems' discharge and evacuation alarms, and to
recognize the appropriate escape routes. This training consists of
making sure that employees, including the employees of contractors,
recognize the discharge and evacuation alarms and escape routes in
accordance with Sec. 1915.508 of this subpart. Paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of
Sec. 1915.506, which was proposed as Sec. 1915.506(b)(5), requires
that employees be trained on the hazards of the fixed extinguishing
system and the dangers associated with disturbing system components.
Such components and equipment include piping, cables, linkages,
detection devices, activation devices, and alarm devices. Employees in
shipyards typically rig materials and equipment in and out of vessels
and vessel sections using chain falls and come-alongs. Employees
unaware of the dangers of disturbing system components could
accidentally activate the system while in the process of rigging.
Sea and Dock Trials
Paragraph 1915.506(c) of the final rule requires employers to
ensure that fire extinguishing systems are activated during sea and
dock trials, which is a different requirement from proposed paragraph
(c). The hazards that were addressed in the proposed paragraph (c) are
now addressed in paragraphs (b) and (g). The proposed paragraph (c)
addressed the risk of intentional or accidental activation of a manual
system during sea or dock trials by requiring that all activation
stations, whether remote or local, be secured under lock and key or an
attendant posted. The intent was to prevent unauthorized persons access
to the activation controls of a manual system because a manual system
that is activated while employees are in the protected space may result
in fatalities. During trials many persons are present who may not be
completely familiar with the ship's operation, and OSHA believes that
only authorized persons should have the authority and ability to
manually activate the systems when employees are working in the
protected spaces.
Bath Iron Works stated:
The intent of this paragraph needs to be clarified or the
paragraph deleted. Does it pertain only to sea trials or are dock
trials included? What constitutes work? Many spaces protected by
fixed manual systems are manned spaces. The personnel assigned to
these spaces perform ``work'' of various types. The space should be
protected by a fire extinguishing system especially during sea
trials. If employees are trained, as is required by proposed
paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(5), they will not activate the system
unless it is necessary because they know the hazards associated with
it. To keep the pull stations under lock and key prohibits immediate
use if the need presented itself. If an unauthorized person wanted
to activate the system, a lock is not going to stop him, nor is a
guard. * * * Delete this entire paragraph as it does not increase
the level of safety for employees and the hazard has been addressed
in previous paragraphs. (Ex. 21-3).
Several commenters stated: ``This paragraph should be deleted from
the proposed rule because it was written before paragraph (b) contained
all of the sub-paragraphs as it currently does. Therefore, paragraphs
(b)(1) and (2) provide the same coverage as paragraph (c).'' (Exs. 21-
4; 21-5; 21-6; 21-7; 21-13; 22-2).
NGNN recommended that:
[O]SHA delete this paragraph. No Captain, Vessel Owner, or
employer should put the safety of their vessel and personnel in
peril by locking out the fire suppression system if it is the
designated means of fire protection for the compartment. We have not
experienced malicious activation of a fire suppression system and
believe it sends the wrong message to lock out or otherwise prevent
the use of a fire suppression manual activation device. If a system
is to be disarmed, then it should be properly isolated, not by
locking out the manual pulls. If it is determined that the risks of
disarming the system outweigh the risks of leaving it armed then the
manual pulls should be left available for use and workers should be
trained on the proper actions to take in the event the system is
activated. (21-8).
Several commenters stated:
While a vessel is on sea trials, the extinguishing system must
remain operational and ready for activation to protect the vessel in
the event of a fire. A tag would be sufficient to inform that
personnel are in the space. Recommendation: 1915.506(c) be reworded
`Before any work * * *, the employer must ensure that during sea
trials activation stations are tagged, informing personnel they are
in the protected space.' '' (Exs. 21-10; 21-15; 21-16; 22-1; 22-6;
22-7 through 22-11).
OSHA agrees with these commenters, and has deleted the requirement
to lock the manual fire suppression system. Although the intent of the
proposal was to prevent accidental activation of the system, it also
may have prevented employees from activating the system when needed in
an emergency situation. In its place, OSHA has added a provision to
require the systems to be operational during sea and dock trails, which
is consistent with the views of
[[Page 55689]]
the commenters that these systems should always be available for use
during trials. While on a sea trial, the shipyard fire response
employees, or outside fire response, would not be able to access the
vessel. Therefore, the extinguishing systems must be operational at all
times. While OSHA does not agree that paragraph (b) alone provides
sufficient protection from the hazard posed by manually activating a
system while employees are within the protected space, OSHA has
determined that the hazard is adequately addressed by the combined
provisions of paragraphs (b) and (g). Paragraph (g) covers the use of
fixed manual extinguishing systems, and is discussed below.
Doors and Hatches
Paragraph (d) of Sec. 1915.506 was proposed as paragraphs (b)(3)
and (b)(4). This section was included as a result of United States
Coast Guard information about a casualty at sea. (67 FR 76233) In this
incident, the chief engineer inadvertently discharged CO2
into a space with an inward opening door. Members of the crew were
unable to open the door until pressure in the space subsided. During
that time, crewmembers trapped in the space were asphyxiated. As a
result of this incident, the Coast Guard recommended that during
inspections, CO2 storage provisions and means of escape
should be evaluated. The Coast Guard stated further that protective
measures should be provided, such as making sure that doors open
outward, that there are kick-out panels in doors or bulkheads, that
doors are blocked open when the space is occupied, or that there are
sufficient vent openings to the atmosphere. These recommendations are
also recognized in the United States Coast Guard Marine Safety Manual,
COMDTINST 16000.7, Vol. II (Ex. 17) and SOLAS 74/78 (Ex.18), which
require outward opening access doors in CO2 protected spaces
aboard vessels.
Paragraph Sec. 1915.506(d)(1) addresses the concerns about inward
opening doors, hatches, scuttles, and other potential barriers that may
close off escape routes as a result of system activation. The paragraph
requires that, when employees are working in a space with inward
opening doors, the doors must be removed, locked open, braced, or
otherwise secured so they will not close and trap employees in the
space. OSHA recognizes that placing a blocking device in a fire door is
normally an unacceptable practice. However, in order to comply with the
requirements of Sec. 1915.506(d)(1), because of the hazard of
asphyxiation, OSHA will allow a fire door to be blocked open, as long
as the blocks are removed when the employees are no longer working in
the protected space.
Paragraph (d)(2) of Sec. 1915.506 (proposed paragraph (b)(4))
requires that all inward opening doors, hatches, scuttles, and other
potential barriers to safe exit must be removed, locked open, braced,
or otherwise secured so that they remain open and accessible for
escape. This is to ensure that, in the event of the systems' activation
that could result in a positive pressure in the protected spaces that
all employees would be able to safely escape.
Great Lakes stated that:
[T]o operate a vessel at sea with doors, hatches and scuttles in
the closed position ensures the fire suppression system operates as
designed, but violates the proposed rule. To operate the vessel with
doors, hatches and scuttles locked in the open position complies
with the proposed rule, but places the ship in grave danger should a
fire break out. To isolate, lock out or otherwise render an
extinguishing system inoperable while under way, or to keep all
doors, hatches and scuttles locked open ensures that the agent will
fail to reach its extinguishing concentration and hold time. Gaseous
agents such as FM-200 (HFC-227ea) depend on achieving a specific
design concentration in the protected space and maintaining that
concentration until it is determined that the fire has been
successfully suppressed. The inability to maintain the agent's
design concentration (e.g., open doors and hatches) can quickly lead
to an uncontrollable fire, severe damage and a potentially life-
threatening situation. (Ex. 22-5).
Several other commenters recommended that: ``1915.506 (b)(3) be
changed by inserting the language ``[I]n the protected spaces, the
emergency exit route doors, hatches or scuttles remain open and
accessible,'' [and] 1915.506 (b)(4) insert the language: ``[I]n the
protected spaces, the emergency exit route doors, hatches, scuttles or
other potential barriers to safe exit must be removed. * *' '' (Exs.
21-10; 21-15; 21-16; 22-1; 22-6; 22-7 through 22-11).
Bath Iron Works stated:
OSHA needs to define positive pressure or clarify the intent of
this paragraph. Many naval ships are designed to maintain positive
pressure in spaces, including machinery spaces, via their
ventilation system. Positive pressure is only an issue if it is
great enough to prevent escape via inward opening doors. To mandate
that these be removed, or locked open, prevents the halon fire
extinguishing system from extinguishing the fire because compartment
integrity has been compromised. A greater hazard has been created in
complying with the standard. * * * Revise the paragraph to show that
the requirements apply only if the positive pressure is great enough
to prevent the opening of inward opening doors. This can be achieved
by the following revision: ``If systems activation could result in a
positive pressure great enough to prevent the opening of doors in
the protected spaces, all inward opening doors, hatches, scuttles *
* *.'' (Ex. 21-3).
The purpose of this section is to protect employees who might be
exposed to hazardous conditions when they are trapped by doors that are
sealed by positive pressure within the space. If the fire suppression
system will not create a pressure sufficient to seal an inward opening
door, the paragraph does not apply. This section specifically protects
the lives of employees working in protected spaces while a fixed
extinguishing system is activated. For example, employees working in a
shaft alley are in a confined space. Should the alarm be activated, the
door(s) will shut automatically, creating a trapping situation for
those employees. Although some vessels may have an escape hatch, not
all vessels have such hatches. In this circumstance, employees must be
trained to block open those doors when entering the space to conduct
work. Should the system be activated, the alarm will sound and the
employees will leave the space immediately. Upon their exit, they
should remove the blocks and shut the door behind them, thus allowing
the fire suppression system to perform as designed. By training
employees to block those doors open, the trapping hazard is then
abated. The Coast Guard, the Committee, and OSHA agree that this
section will save lives.
Testing the System and Conducting System Maintenance
Paragraphs (e) and (f) (formerly (d) and (e)) of Sec. 1915.506
address system testing and system maintenance operations. Testing and
maintenance have been demonstrated to be the most likely causes of
accidental system activation. The Coast Guard currently requires fixed
fire extinguishing systems to be disconnected when undergoing any
testing or maintenance. The need for these requirements is demonstrated
clearly by the fatalities that occurred while testing the fixed system
on the M/V CAPE DIAMOND mentioned above. As a result of this incident,
the Coast Guard recommended that personnel in spaces protected by
CO2 systems be evacuated during testing, unless suitable
safeguards are instituted, such as isolating the CO2 supply
from the protected space or providing personnel with self-contained
breathing apparatus (SCBA).
OSHA proposed to both physically isolate the system and to evacuate
non-essential personnel during testing because testing of such a system
[[Page 55690]]
typically results in alarm activation and could result in a discharge
of the extinguishing agent, putting any employees in the space in
danger of death or injury.
Bath Iron Works stated:
The paragraph mandates both ``physically isolating'' the system
and evacuation of employees not directly involved in ``testing the
system.'' The standard does not explain what ``testing the system''
means. Judging from the summary and explanation the concern is
during a system's concentration test when extinguishing media is
actually discharged into the space so the concentration can be
measured. This really confuses the intent of this paragraph for the
following reasons. (1) You cannot test a physically isolated system
because the definition of physically isolated in this standard
prevents the system from being hooked to a supply, (2) If the system
is physically isolated there is no potential for discharge so
evacuation is unnecessary and (3) If there was a potential for the
discharge of extinguishing media into a space, then all personnel
should be evacuated not just those, ``not involved in the testing.''
This paragraph is extremely confusing. * * * Assuming that the
committee's intent is to protect employees during a concentration
test, revise the paragraph to read ``The employer will ensure that
the protected space and affected adjacent spaces are evacuated
during system's testing that could result in the discharge of
extinguishing media into the space.''
Note: There is no need to specify vessels and vessel sections as
it is the title of this part. (Ex. 21-3).
NGNN commented:
Does this mean that it is acceptable for personnel directly
involved in testing to remain in the compartment during actual
discharge? * * * Delete the words, ``not directly involved in
testing it.'' The modified paragraph will then read, ``The employer
must make sure that the system is isolated and that all employees
are evacuated from the protected spaces when levels of extinguishant
can prevent self rescue, before testing any fixed extinguishing
system'' (Ex. 21-8).
These commenters are correct in noting that there are two types of
tests that are performed on automatic fire extinguishing systems. One
method involves the total release of extinguishing medium into a space
(total flooding), while the other does not. As noted by the commenters,
the proposed rule did not address the hazards caused by each type of
test, making the proposed rule confusing, and providing inadequate
protections for testing involving total flooding. To make the
requirement clearer, and to make sure that appropriate protections are
in place for employees who may be exposed to hazards by each type of
test, OSHA has revised paragraph (e) to address both types of testing.
Paragraph Sec. 1915.506(e)(1) addresses the first test in which
the system is intentionally activated to determine whether or not it
will introduce sufficient fire extinguishing material to be effective.
In this case, the final standard requires the employer to ensure that
all employees are evacuated from the space and that no employees remain
in the space during the discharge, as recommended by the commenters.
OSHA is requiring that, after the discharge of the extinguishing medium
into the space, the employer must ensure that the atmosphere is safe
for employees to reenter. OSHA is requiring the employer to follow the
requirements found in Sec. 1915.12, Precautions and the order of
testing before entering confined and enclosed spaces and other
dangerous atmospheres. OSHA is adding these requirements to eliminate
confusion. Paragraph Sec. 1915.506(e)(2) addresses the second, and
more common type of test, which involves the use of air or nitrogen as
a replacement for the extinguishing medium so that sensors, valves, and
heads can be tested individually for their proper operation. This type
of testing is commonly performed during ship repair and maintenance
work. To perform the test, technicians physically isolate the system's
extinguishing medium and then activate individual components to verify
proper function. Fire alarms are activated during this testing, and
other employees in the area will not know if the alarm is part of the
test, or if it is a real alarm. Therefore, the final standard requires
the employer to physically isolate the system to assure that the system
does not introduce extinguishing medium into the space, and to assure
that any employees not directly involved in the testing are evacuated.
This evacuation is a reasonable safety precaution because a real alarm
may be ignored as a false or nuisance alarm by non-essential employees
until it is too late to evacuate the space safely.
Paragraph (f) (proposed paragraph (e)) requires that the employer
ensure that the system is physically isolated before conduction
maintenance on a fixed extinguishing system. OSHA did not receive
comment on this paragraph and has included it in the final rule without
revision.
Using Fixed Manual Extinguishing Systems for Fire Protection
In paragraph (g) (formerly paragraph (f)) of Sec. 1915.506, OSHA
addresses the hazards associated with using fixed fire extinguishing
systems by requiring that employees be trained and designated as
necessary to operate and activate the system properly. Further, OSHA
requires that all employees be evacuated from spaces, and accounted for
before the discharge of the system. As described in the preamble to the
proposed rule, these requirements are necessary to prevent fatalities
from overexposures to carbon dioxide (67 FR 76234).
Paragraph (g)(1) requires that only authorized employees be allowed
to activate fixed manual extinguishing systems. This is based on the
proposed requirement that would have required employers to lock out the
manual pull stations or post an attendant at them. While OSHA
determined that the systems should not be locked out, additional
regulatory language was needed to clarify that not all employees should
be able to activate a manual fixed extinguishing system. An authorized
person must be available to activate the system, if necessary,
following the evacuation of the employees who are working in the space.
The authorized person or persons should be the only person to activate
the system. This will alleviate the possibility of someone activating
the system who has not been trained, or does not know what hazards are
involved with the activation of the system.
OSHA is not instructing the employer on who should be an authorized
person, or on the number of authorized persons they must train. These
are determinations that need to be made by each employer. Authorized
employees are required to be trained. Therefore, the employer must make
the determination of the number of employees that will be authorized to
activate the system. Should an employer desire to have all employees
designated as authorized, those employees must be trained. Conversely,
an employer may designate foremen, or senior employees, as authorized,
and train those few employees.
Paragraph (g)(2) requires that authorized employees be trained to
operate fixed manual systems when the employer expects these systems to
be relied on in the event of a fire. This was proposed as paragraphs
(f)(1), and OSHA has modified this provision to ensure that only
authorized employees are trained to operate and activate the system. As
proposed, the provision allowed for employees to be trained and
designated. OSHA wanted to ensure that only authorized employees,
rather then designated, would have access to activate the system. NGNN
stated:
The paragraph could be interpreted to require us to designate
and train our
[[Page 55691]]
employees to operate ship's fixed fire extinguishing systems.
Current work practices on U.S. Navy vessels do not permit this
action by non-Navy personnel. Responsibilities for fire response are
established via contract, memorandum of understanding or other means
depending on the stage of construction or repair. Similarly, other
employers at a host site may not have authority to operate a
particular fire extinguishing system, but should ensure their
personnel understand their required actions in the event of a fire.
Recommend: 1915.506 (f)(1) be changed to read as follows:
``Employees are instructed on the appropriate actions to be taken in
the event of fire or activation of the fire extinguishing system
within the compartment. (Ex. 21-8).
OSHA does not agree with this commenter's suggested revision. The
employer is responsible for making sure that someone is present who is
designated to operate the manual fire suppression system and is trained
to do so safely. Not all employees have the right or authorization to
activate a system. The designation of employees to activate the system
should come from an agreement with the shipyard, the vessel owner, and
the captain to designate a person or persons. The person or persons who
are selected need to be trained to operate and activate the system. In
addition, Paragraph (g)(3) requires that all other employees need to be
evacuated from the protected spaces and accounted for before the system
is activated.
Paragraph (g)(3) of Sec. 1915.506, proposed as (f)(2), requires
that the protected space be evacuated completely and all employees
accounted for before discharge of the fixed manual extinguishing
system. OSHA received no comments on this provision, and it is included
in the final rule as it was proposed.
Section 1915.507 Land-Side Fire Protection Systems
This section consolidates various existing requirements as well as
providing references to current applicable national consensus
standards. (See the proposal to the NPRM for a discussion of existing
requirements (67 FR 76235).
Employer Responsibilities
Under paragraph (a) of Sec. 1915.507, the employer must ensure
that all fixed and portable fire protection systems installed to meet a
particular OSHA standard comply with the appropriate requirements of
this section. The provisions in this section do not apply to fixed or
portable fire protection systems the employer has installed to meet
requirements other than OSHA's, such as local requirements, or ships
systems.
Portable Fire Extinguishers and Host Systems
In Sec. 1915.507(b), OSHA regulates the use of portable fire
extinguishers and hose systems. By incorporating by reference NFPA 10-
1998 Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers (Ex. 19-1) in paragraph
(b) of this section, the employer may replace up to one-half of the
required complement of fire extinguishers by uniformly spaced 1-inch
(3.8 cm) hose stations. If the employer chooses to use hose systems,
then the employer must meet the recommendations of NFPA 14-2000
Standard for the Installation of Standpipe, Private Hydrant, and Hose
Systems (Ex. 19-12). This is consistent with current OSHA practice
under 29 CFR 1910.157 and 1910.158. The incorporation by reference in
Sec. 1915.507(b)(1) will permit some flexibility in offering
protection for incipient stage fires.
In paragraph (b)(2) of this section, OSHA is allowing the employer
to use hose lines attached to Class II or Class III standpipe systems
in place of portable fire extinguishers if those hose systems meet the
applicable selection, installation, inspection, maintenance, and
testing requirements of NFPA 14-2000 Standard for the Installation of
Standpipe, Private Hydrant, and Hose Systems (Ex. 19-12).
Several commenters were concerned about incorporating NFPA
standards by reference:
This section requires installation, maintenance and testing in
accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
standards. NFPA is not required to seek non-member participation in
the development of standards. Also, these standards are not
available free of cost to employers. These consensus standards have
been a problem for the shipyard community because once they are
incorporated by reference; the NFPA can change or impose a new
regulation on industry without industry participation in the
process. If OSHA incorporates these standards by reference, OSHA
should provide the version that will be enforced to the regulated
community, and ensure public participation in additional rulemaking
that may result from changes to the standards (Exs. 21-4; 21-5; 21-
6; 21-7; 21-13).
Reliance on national consensus standards such as those referenced
here is a U.S. government policy. The U.S. Office of Management and
Budget in Circular A-119 directs federal agencies to use voluntary
consensus standards in lieu of government-unique standards except where
inconsistent with law or otherwise impractical. The NFPA also includes
the public during the process of developing new codes and standards,
and when NFPA standards are revised. OSHA incorporates consensus
standards by reference only in the notice and comment rulemaking
process, such as here. OSHA proposed incorporation, received public
comment, analyzed the comments, and only then determined if the
specific NFPA consensus standard would be incorporated.
NFPA does not provide free copies of their standards to the public.
They must be purchased. Due to legal restrictions, OSHA cannot publish
another agency or association's standards when OSHA incorporates them
by reference into an OSHA standard. However, when OSHA does incorporate
by reference, that particular standard or code is submitted to the
Federal Register and to the OSHA Docket Office. As set forth in Sec.
1915.5, the materials may be purchased from the organization that
publishes them, and are available for inspection at the Federal
Register, the OSHA Docket Office, or in OSHA regional offices. Apart
from minor editorial changes, paragraphs (a) and (b) in Sec. 1915.507
are carried forward unchanged in the final standard.
General Requirements for Fixed Extinguishing Systems
Under Sec. 1915.507(c), OSHA addresses the general requirements of
fixed extinguishing systems the employer must install to meet a
particular OSHA standard. In paragraph (c)(1), OSHA requires the use of
fixed extinguishing systems that have been approved by a National
Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). This is consistent with OSHA's
current practice of requiring that all fire protection equipment and
systems are approved for their purpose and design by a NRTL.
In paragraph (c)(2) of Sec. 1915.507, OSHA requires that employers
notify employees and take the necessary precautions to protect
employees when a fire extinguishing system becomes inoperable.
Precautions must remain in place until the system is working again.
In paragraph (c)(3) of Sec. 1915.507, OSHA also requires that a
qualified technician or mechanic repair any inoperable system. This
requirement is consistent with current fire protection standards (29
CFR 1910.160 and NFPA 12-2000).
OSHA requires in Sec. 1915.507(c)(4) that when an area remains
hazardous to employee safety or health as a result of the discharge of
an extinguishing agent, effective safeguards must be provided to warn
employees not to enter the discharge area. This is consistent with the
requirements in Sec. 1910.160(b). Should an employee need to enter
this
[[Page 55692]]
discharge area for emergency reasons, personal protective equipment
must be provided. An emergency could include the rescue of another
employee or to shut down equipment or processes to ensure that
additional conditions do not arise.
This paragraph is necessary because some systems are designed to
discharge extinguishing agents in concentrations greater than is safe
for humans. These systems have the potential to create a hazard to
employees and need special consideration and control. OSHA has
incorporated the requirements in Sec. 1910.160(b) in this final
standard, recognizing that the hazards of such systems need to be
identified and controlled in shipyard employment. This is particularly
true of systems using carbon dioxide and some of the newer Halon
replacement agents. OSHA is also adding a sentence to this paragraph
directing the reader to Sec. 1915.12, Precautions and the order of
testing before entering confined and enclosed spaces and other
dangerous atmospheres, for additional requirements for entry into
dangerous atmospheres created by the discharge of certain extinguishing
agents.
In paragraph (c)(5) of Sec. 1915.507, OSHA requires the employer
to post hazard warning or caution signs at both the entrance to and
inside of areas protected by fixed extinguishing systems that could
discharge extinguishing agents in concentrations that are known to be
hazardous to employee safety or health. This is consistent with
paragraph (b)(5) of 29 CFR 1910.160.
In Sec. 1915.507(c)(6), OSHA requires the employer to select,
install, inspect, maintain, and test all automatic fire detection
systems and emergency alarms according to NFPA 72-1999, National Fire
Alarm Code (Ex. 19-13). Several technological advancements have
occurred in both fire detection and fire alarm technology in recent
years. Incorporating NFPA 72-1999 as the OSHA standard for designing
and installing all fire detection and alarm systems will provide
employees with protections consistent with protections provided by
other codes and standards used by local authorities having jurisdiction
or other building codes. No comments were received on paragraph (c),
and OSHA is carrying it forward in the final standard.
Fixed Extinguishing Systems
In Sec. 1915.507(d), OSHA requires that the selection,
installation, maintenance, inspection, and testing of specific types of
fixed fire extinguishing systems meet the requirements of particular
NFPA standards. The Agency received no comments on this paragraph and
has adopted it in the final standard.
In paragraph (d)(1), OSHA requires that standpipe and hose systems
in land-side facilities follow the requirements in NFPA 14-2000
Standard for the Installation of Standpipe, Private Hydrant, and Hose
Systems (Ex. 19-12).
In Sec. 1915.507(d)(2), OSHA is incorporating by reference NFPA
13-1999 Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems (Ex. 19-14);
NFPA 750-2000 Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems (Ex. 19-
15); and NFPA 25-2002 Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and
Maintenance of Water-based Fire Protection Systems (Ex. 19-16), to
address the installation of OSHA-required automatic sprinkler systems
in land-side facilities. NFPA 13-1999 and NFPA 750-2000 provide,
respectively, requirements for automatic sprinklers and automatic mist
systems. NFPA 25-5002 has maintenance and inspection requirements for
both of these water systems.
In paragraph (d)(3) of Sec. 1915.507, OSHA is incorporating by
reference several NFPA standards with specifications for fixed
extinguishing systems that use water spray or foam for the
extinguishing agent. These include the NFPA 11-1998 Standard for Low-
Expansion Foam (Ex. 19-17); NFPA 11A-1999 Standard for Medium- and
High-Expansion Foam Systems (Ex. 19-18); and NFPA 15-2001 Standard for
Water Spray Fixed Systems for Fire Protection (Ex. 19-19). In paragraph
(d)(4) of Sec. 1915.507, OSHA is incorporating by reference NFPA 17-
2002 Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems (Ex. 19-20) for
fixed extinguishing systems using dry chemical as the extinguishing
agent.
In paragraph (d)(5) of Sec. 1915.507, OSHA is incorporating by
reference the current edition of NFPA standards that address fixed
extinguishing systems using gas as the extinguishing agent.
Specifically, OSHA is referencing NFPA 12-2000 Standard on Carbon
Dioxide Extinguishing Systems (Ex. 19-21); NFPA 12A-1997 Standard on
Halon 1301 Extinguishing Systems (Ex. 19-22); and NFPA 2001-2000
Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems (Ex. 19-23).
OSHA recognizes that the fire-extinguishing agent Halon 1301 is
being phased out because of environmental concerns. However, for
economic reasons, existing Halon 1301 systems may remain in service
until such time as an alternative agent replaces them. Therefore, OSHA
is promulgating the requirements in Sec. 1915.507(d)(5) for the design
and installation of Halon 1301 systems to ensure employee safety. For
the systems that will replace Halon, OSHA is requiring that the
employer meet NFPA 12-2000 Standard on Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing
Systems (Ex. 19-21) or NFPA 2001-2000 Standard on Clean Agent Fire
Extinguishing Systems (Ex. 19-23) for their design and installation. No
comments were received on paragraph (d), and OSHA is carrying it
forward in the final standard.
Section 1915.508 Training
Employee training is a critical element of an employer's program in
combating the hazards of fire in shipyard employment. The proposed
standard placed a specific emphasis on hazard recognition, fire watch,
and fire response. This final standard has been reformatted and edited
to provide clearer guidance for training employees who are required to
evacuate during an emergency, expected to fight an incipient stage
fire, designated as fire watch workers, or designated as fire response
employees.
First, all employees need training on alarms and proper evacuation
procedures. In some cases, employers may want some or all employees to
evacuate the work area during a fire emergency and not respond to the
fire, so limited training is needed. Second, the employer may decide to
designate certain employees to fight incipient stage fires. For
example, an employer may designate and train all shift supervisors, or
security personnel, on fighting incipient stage fires, while the
remaining employees evacuate the work area. These employees need basic
knowledge of fire extinguishing equipment and the hazards they may
face. Third, fire watch workers who are more likely to actually fight
an incipient stage fire require additional training to allow them to
perform this duty safely. Finally, fire response employees may be
called upon to fight fires that have advanced beyond the incipient
stage, and need advanced firefighting knowledge to perform this
inherently dangerous work. This section has been reformatted and
renumbered from the proposed standard to reflect the additional
training requirements required for each type of employee.
Regardless of the amount of training that employees will receive,
they must be trained within the time restrictions that are required in
paragraph (a). Proposed paragraph (a) required that affected employees
be trained when they first start working, or as necessary to maintain
proficiency on the following: (1) The general principles of
[[Page 55693]]
using fire extinguishers or hose lines, the hazards involved with
incipient firefighting, and the procedures used to reduce these
hazards; (2) the hazards associated with fixed and portable fire
protection systems that they may use or to which they may be exposed
during discharge of those systems; (3) the activation and operations of
fixed and portable fire protection systems provided for their use in
the workplace; (4) the emergency alarm signals, including system
discharge and employee evacuation alarms; and (5) the primary and
secondary evacuation routes they must use in the event of a fire in the
workplace.
In the final standard, this paragraph has been divided into three
new paragraphs. The final requirement in paragraph (a) requires that
all employees be trained within 90 days from the effective date of this
standard for employees currently working, upon initial assignment for
new employees, and when necessary to maintain proficiency for employees
previously trained. Under the proposed language, it was not
sufficiently clear that the training requirements apply to both current
and new employees. This final language is consistent with Sec.
1915.502(c) to provide training for current and new employees. The
requirement to train and retrain selected employees is based upon the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.157.
Employee Training
Proposed paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) have been divided into
two new paragraphs and renumbered. Proposed paragraphs (a)(4) and
(a)(5) are now required for all employees in paragraph (b), regardless
of their level of participation in fire response. Paragraph (b)
requires that all employees be trained on the emergency alarm signals,
including system discharge alarms and employee evacuation alarms, and
the primary and secondary evacuation routes. OSHA has determined that
all employees must be trained on these two basic fire safety issues to
protect lives.
In proposed paragraph Sec. 1915.508(a)(5), now paragraph (b)(2),
regarding training on the primary and secondary evacuation routes a
fire watch employee must use in the event of a fire in the workplace,
OSHA proposed a note stating that vessels and vessel sections may not
always have a secondary evacuation route (67 FR 76237). In the final
rule, in paragraph (b)(2), OSHA has incorporated this note into the
regulatory text and modified it to read: ``While all vessels and vessel
sections must have a primary evacuation route, a secondary evacuation
route is not required when impracticable.'' This change reflects OSHA's
view that multiple evacuation routes provide a greater degree of safety
for employees, and that the employer must provide a secondary route
unless it is impracticable. The change is also compatible with the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.36, which requires two or more exit routes
for buildings and other structures at the shipyard, with certain
exceptions. Similar to the Sec. 1910.36 standard, OSHA recognizes that
there are circumstances where a second evacuation route is not
practicable. In those situations, the employer must train employees
only on the primary evacuation route. This change remains consistent
with the recommendations of the Committee to recognize the uniqueness
of vessels and vessel sections in comparison to buildings and other
land-side structures, while providing greater clarity on the need for
safe evacuation procedures.
Additionally, comments received on paragraph (a) stated: ``This
section should include an additional paragraph, which allows for a
combined training session that incorporates all emergency training into
one session'' (Exs. 21-4; 21-5; 21-6; 21-7; 21-13; 22-2). The employer
is already free to incorporate all training into one session, or to
train all employees at the same time as long as all requirements are
met. This requirement is performance-oriented. OSHA indicates what
training is required and allows the employer to decide the best way to
comply with all of the requirements,
Additional Training Requirements for Employees Expected To Fight
Incipient Stage Fires
Proposed paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) have been moved and are
now included in the training requirements for those employees
designated to fight fires in paragraph (c). These employees will be
designated by the employer as employees who attempt to extinguish an
incipient stage fire. Paragraph (c)(1) requires that these employees be
trained on the hazards involved with incipient stage firefighting, and
the procedures used to reduce these hazards, as well as the principles
of using fire extinguishers or hose lines. In addition, paragraphs
(c)(2) and (c)(3) require these employees to be trained on the hazards
associated with fixed and portable fire protection systems that they
may use or to which they may be exposed during discharge of those
systems, as well as the activation and operation of fixed and portable
fire protection systems that the employer expects them to use. Proposed
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) have been carried forward in the final
rule.
Additional Training Requirements for Shipyard Employees Designated for
Fire Response
These requirements were proposed as paragraphs (b)(1) through
(b)(10), and have been renumbered as (d)(1) through (d)(10). In Sec.
1915.508(d), OSHA addresses the additional training requirements for
fire response employees and the training requirement that will replace
paragraph (c) of Sec. 1915.52. Fire response employees may be exposed
to many hazards associated with fire suppression, including heat,
flame, smoke, explosion, structural collapse, or hazardous materials.
It is important that these employees are provided with training
specific to what they might encounter. No comments were received on
proposed paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(8), and they are carried forward
renumbered as (d)(1) through (d)(8).
In paragraph (d)(1) of Sec. 1915.508, OSHA requires that the
employer have a written training policy stating that fire response
employees must be trained and capable of carrying out their duties and
responsibilities at all times. This is consistent with the requirements
found in 29 CFR 1910.156 and NFPA 1500-2002 (Ex. 19-5).
In paragraph (d)(2), OSHA requires the employer to keep written
standard operating procedures that address anticipated emergency
operations and to update these procedures as necessary. Emergency
operations are activities, such as rescue, fire suppression, and
emergency medical care that are performed by a fire response
organization. In some incidents, these emergency operations may include
special operations, such as hazardous materials response (HAZMAT),
HAZMAT release mitigation, standby for flight operations, protection of
structures exposed to nearby off-site fires, or mutual-aid at other
workplaces. Written standard operating procedures are training tools
and represent the best practice in the industry. This is consistent
with the language in paragraphs 3-1.5 and 3-1.8 of NFPA 1500-2002 (Ex.
19-5).
In Sec. 1915.508(d)(3), OSHA requires the employer to review fire
response employee training programs and hands-on sessions before they
are used to make sure that fire response employees are protected from
hazardous training conditions. This should help to prevent the
occurrence of training accidents resulting from unexpected events such
as flare-ups, collapses, entrapments, and stress-induced injuries.
[[Page 55694]]
In paragraph (d)(4) of Sec. 1915.508, OSHA requires all fire
response employees to be adequately trained to carry out their duties
and responsibilities under the employer's standard operating
procedures. This training program must provide the information
necessary to ensure that these employees are competent to respond
appropriately to a fire. For example, the fire response employee must
know how to respond to a fire on board a vessel, where the pier hook-
ups are located, how to gain access to the vessel, and how to determine
the location and type of fire within the vessel.
In Sec. 1915.508(d)(5), OSHA requires the employer to train new
fire response employees before they engage in emergency duties so that
they can work safely and effectively at a fire scene. This language is
consistent with paragraph 3-1.3 of NFPA 1500-2002 (Ex. 19-5).
In paragraph (d)(6) of Sec. 1915.508, the employer must provide
training for firefighters at least quarterly on the employer's written
operational procedures. Because of the complexity of hazards involved
in shipyard firefighting, the quarterly training requirement is
appropriate. In addition, most fire response operations in shipyard
employment, whether on a vessel or in land-side facilities, go beyond
the incipient stage and most likely involve an interior attack.
In paragraph (d)(7) of Sec. 1915.508, OSHA requires that all fire
response operations training be conducted by qualified instructors.
This language is consistent with paragraph 5.2.11 of NFPA 1500-2002
(Ex. 19-5).
In Sec. 1915.508(d)(8), OSHA requires any live firefighting
training exercises to follow NFPA 1403-2002 Standard on Live Fire
Training Evolutions (Ex. 19-24). This is consistent with paragraphs
4.9.4 and 5.2.10 of NFPA 1500-2002 (Ex. 19-5).
In paragraph (d)(9) of Sec. 1915.508, the employer must provide
semiannual drills that cover site-specific operations, occupancies,
buildings, vessels and vessel sections, and fire-related hazards,
according to the employer's written operational procedures. The
semiannual requirement for drills is consistent with the recommended
frequency found in paragraph 5.3 of NFPA 1500-2002 (Ex. 19-5).
Bath Iron Works stated:
OSHA does not state that an actual fire response qualifies as
meeting the requirement of a drill. To maintain consistency with 29
CFR 1915.12(e) which allows an actual confined space rescue to
qualify as meeting the training requirements the paragraph should be
revised. Recommendation: Add the following text: ``Conduct semi
annual drills unless the team performs an actual fire response
during the 6 month period.'' (Ex. 21-3).
OSHA disagrees with Bath Iron works and is convinced that fire
responses are not adequate substitutes for training drills. A training
drill is intended to be used for assessing and improving operational or
deployment procedures. Actual fires provide useful learning
experiences, and it is usual and customary to evaluate fires for this
purpose, but they do not provide the same training opportunity as
drills. When an actual alarm is sounded and the shipyard fire
department responds, the on-scene command is coordinating the scene and
ensuring that firefighters respond safety and effectively. They cannot
effectively observe, document, and evaluate the response at the same
time. Drills are used for the sole purpose of training, while fire
response is focused on saving lives and property. This issue was
discussed during the negotiated rulemaking process and Committee
members had varying positions. OSHA was convinced by the position of
most of the Committee members that the rule should require semiannual
drills without regard to actual fire responses for the above reasons.
The Agency has not received compelling reasons to change its position.
Therefore, this paragraph has not been changed for the final standard.
In paragraph (d)(10) of Sec. 1915.508, OSHA prohibits the employer
from using smoke generating devices that could create a dangerous
atmosphere in training exercises. This includes training done on
vessels and vessel sections as well as in buildings and other
structures. This requirement is consistent with paragraph 8.3.2 of NFPA
1500-2002 (Ex. 19-5). Where the employer must simulate emergency
conditions that require smoke generation, smoke-generating devices that
do not create a hazard must be used. OSHA received no comments on
proposed paragraph (b)(10), and it has been carried forward in the
final rule as (d)(10).
Additional Training Requirements for Fire Watch Duty
Proposed paragraph (c) of Sec. 1915.508, which has been renumbered
as paragraph (e), sets forth the additional training requirements for
any person assigned to fire watch duty. In shipyard employment, some
employers hire contract workers as needed for the sole purpose of fire
watch. The employer is ultimately responsible for ensuring that these
fire watches are trained in accordance with Sec. 1915.508(f). One way
to do this is for the employer to have a written evaluation of the
contractor's training program that the employer can review and thereby
ensure compliance with the OSHA standard. Again, OSHA wants to make
clear that it is the employer's responsibility to make sure that all
fire watches are trained.
In paragraph (e)(1) of Sec. 1915.508, OSHA requires the employer
to make sure the fire watch has been trained: (i) Before beginning the
fire watch; (ii) when there is a change in operations that presents a
hazard for which the worker has not been previously trained; (iii) when
the employer determines that the fire watch employee needs to be
trained; and (iv) annually.
Marine Chemist Services, Inc. submitted the following comment on
the training of fire watches:
Unlike the requirement in paragraph 1915.508(b)(7) Training
requirements for shipyard employees designated for fire response to
``(u)se qualified instructors to conduct the training'', there is no
similar requirement for fire watch training instructors. As a
result, literally anyone will be able train fire watches.
Consequently, the fire watch training program will contain as much
or as little detail as the trainer is knowledgeable (through
education and experience) and/or has time. * * * Recommendation: add
the words ``in an approved fire watch training course taught by a
qualified instructor'' (Ex. 22-12).
OSHA agrees with this comment. Although most shipyard employers
would use a qualified instructor, one could interpret this standard
incorrectly, and employees could be trained incompletely or
inadequately. Therefore, OSHA is changing the regulatory text of Sec.
1915.508(e)(1) to read: ``The employer must ensure that each fire watch
is trained by an instructor with adequate fire watch knowledge and
experience to cover the items as follows:'
Marine Chemist Services also stated:
It is agreed that a fire watch's knowledge and understanding
must be adequate in order for him or her to properly perform fire
watch duties; but so, too, must be one's skill. Even the requirement
to extinguish live fire scenarios seems to suggest the importance of
one's skill, both in terms of physical (e.g. strength) and mental
(e.g. remaining calm) abilities. Therefore, knowledge and skill and
understanding are needed here. Recommendation: insert ``skill'' as
follows: Whenever the employer has reason to believe that the fire
watch's knowledge, skill or understanding of the training previously
provided is inadequate. (Ex. 22-12).
OSHA agrees that skills are an important component of the training
requirements, as are the knowledge and understanding of the duties to
be
[[Page 55695]]
performed, and has included the word ``skills'' in Sec.
1915.508(e)(1)(iii) as suggested by Marine Chemist Services.
Under paragraph (e)(1)(iv) of Sec. 1915.508, employers must
retrain fire watches annually. Annual training is an industry practice.
In addition, annual training is already required by Navy contracts
throughout the country.
NAVSEA stated: ``Recommend modifying this requirement as follows:
`Annual refresher training to include discussion of the types of fires
seen recently in operations that the fire watch may encounter in the
next year.' '' (Ex. 22-15). OSHA agrees that it would be prudent for
any shipyard that has an incident to discuss the incident during the
annual retraining, and encourages shipyards to do so if the discussion
will add to the knowledge and understanding of fire watches. However,
OSHA has concluded that the employer is in the best position to
determine if a discussion of past fires would always be useful or
necessary for its fire watch workers. Therefore, OSHA does not believe
modification of this provision is necessary and has not modified the
standard.
Paragraph (e)(2) of Sec. 1915.508 contains 12 items the employer
must include in fire watch training. The training includes how to
anticipate and be aware of the hazards that may be faced while
performing fire watch duties, such as limited egress or possible
changes in atmospheric conditions. To recognize the adverse health
effects that may be caused by exposure to fire, employees have to be
trained under OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200.
Workers need to be knowledgeable about fire prevention practices so
they can correctly react to changes in the hot work environment that
introduce hazards not identified at the start of hot work. Examples are
deterioration of housekeeping or introduction of combustible or
flammable materials.
Paragraph (e)(2)(i) of Sec. 1915.508 requires the employer to
train a fire watch on the basics of fire behavior, classes of fires,
extinguishing agents, stages of fire, and methods of extinguishment.
The basics of fire behavior usually include the definition of the fire
triangle and tetrahedron as set forth by NFPA 1001-1997 Standard for
Fire Fighter Professional Qualification (Ex. 19-25). Extinguishing
agents commonly used in shipyard employment are dry chemicals, water,
and CO2. Methods of extinguishing require removing one or
more of the following: heat (ignition), oxygen, fuel, or chemical chain
reactions. OSHA received no comments on this paragraph, and it is
carried forward as proposed.
Paragraph (e)(2)(ii) requires that each fire watch be trained using
live fire scenarios whenever allowed by law. The training exercise
would be a controlled burn and would teach the trainee the proper way
to approach the fire. There are different requirements and restrictions
across the country in this regard.
Numerous comments were received on this issue.
We believe it is unnecessary to create a hazard with a live fire
exercise, employees can demonstrate proper operation of a fire
extinguisher with other equipment. Use of charged extinguishers and
live fires is costly and may add little reality to the training.
Employers should have the option to use alternative instructional
methods and equipment for fire watches. (Exs. 21-10; 21-15; 21-16;
22-1; 22-6; 22-7 through 22-11).
In addition, National Steel and Shipbuilding Company stated: ``Live
fire scenarios are not required to demonstrate the ability to use a
fire extinguisher. Employees can be effectively trained without the
need to extinguish live fire scenarios. We recommend that the
requirement be for live fire scenarios be removed.'' (Ex. 22-14).
NGNN recommended that this paragraph be deleted:
[P]aragraph (c)(2)(viii) requires the employer to instruct
employees assigned to fire watch on how to select and use fire
extinguishing equipment and this is sufficient. * * * Our current
practice of providing practical hands-on use of the various
extinguishers without the presence or a live fire has proven
effective at our facility as evidenced by our fire safety record
described in our cover letter. * * * We strongly encourage OSHA to
use performance-oriented language, such as in paragraph
(c)(2)(viii), rather than prescriptive language in this regard. (Ex.
21-8).
There are some localities that prohibit burning due to smog or
clean air provisions. If this is the case, then live fire training
should not be used. If this is not the case, live fire scenarios must
be used and employees are expected to use fire extinguishers on such
fires. Learning the different types of fires and appropriate fire
extinguishers is more effective when live fire scenarios are used. In
addition, fire watches need to know and be able to demonstrate that
they can adequately use a fire extinguisher to extinguish a fire. The
Committee was unanimous in its support of live fire training as the
most effective means to train fire watches for their duties, because it
provides the best simulation of actual firefighting technique. The
Agency agrees that this is the case, and finds the comments that live
fire training is unnecessary unpersuasive. Therefore, this provision is
being included in the final standard as proposed. The only exception is
for situations where a state or local law prohibits open burning and
the employer is unable to obtain an exception for the training. In this
case, the Agency does not wish to put the employer in the position of
violating a local fire rule to comply with the OSHA standard.
Paragraphs (e)(2)(iii), (iv), and (v) require, respectively, that
employees who stand fire watch duty must be knowledgeable of the
adverse health effects that may be caused by exposure to fire, the
physical characteristics of the hot work area, and the hazards
associated with fire watch duties.
Paragraphs (e)(2)(vi) and (vii) of Sec. 1915.508 require training
on personal protective equipment (PPE), including what PPE is
appropriate in a particular situation, as well as how to use it. A fire
watch may need the same or different items of PPE from that used by a
hot worker. The fire watch could be assigned to an isolated or confined
space and, therefore, would need the additional protection that is
required under other sections of Part 1915.
Paragraph (e)(2)(viii) of Sec. 1915.508 requires that an employee
who stands fire watch duty be trained to select and operate fire
extinguishers and fire hoses likely to be used by the fire watch. As in
the case of fire extinguishers, whenever a fire watch is expected to
use a fire hose, the fire watch must be trained in its use. A fire
watch who has been trained with a fire extinguisher but not a fire hose
does not necessarily understand how to use a fire hose. Fire watches
need targeted training if they may have to deal with these different
types of equipment within their shipyard employment.
The Agency requires that a fire watch be trained to select and
operate the different types of fire extinguishers and fire hoses likely
to be used by fire watches in the area. These requirements are similar
to those found in 29 CFR 1910.157 in which OSHA requires the employer
to train any employee who has been designated to use portable fire
extinguishers (or, as stated in paragraph (e)(2)(viii) of this section,
fire hoses), and for these employees to be familiar with the general
principles of fire extinguisher use and the hazards of fighting
incipient stage fires. OSHA does not believe that adopting this
training requirement from Part 1910 imposes any new burden on shipyard
employers beyond what currently exists.
[[Page 55696]]
Paragraph (e)(2)(ix) of Sec. 1915.508 requires fire watch
personnel to be trained to know the location and use of barriers that
are part of the employer's fire protection program. It is a common
shipyard practice to use barriers to prevent molten metal or sparks
from traveling to uncleaned areas where flammable materials may be
ignited. However, such barriers can also create hazards by blocking an
employee's evacuation route or by suppressing ventilation to the point
where fumes or vapors can accumulate. Therefore, a worker who stands
fire watch must understand how to use the barriers safely.
In Sec. 1915.508(e)(2)(x), OSHA requires that the fire watch be
trained in the means of communicating with each worker performing hot
work to ensure the safety of workers. Effective communication is
especially important when a fire watch can not see a hot worker
because, for example, the fire watch is on the other side of a
compartment from the hot worker. In this case, the means of
communication may be as simple as tapping on the bulkhead to signal
whether the hot worker can continue or must stop, or an electronic
communication system such as a two-way radio.
In paragraphs (e)(2)(xi) and (xii) of Sec. 1915.508, OSHA requires
that fire watches be trained to know when and how to initiate fire
alarm procedures and to be familiar with the shipyard's evacuation
plan. OSHA recognizes that fire watch work assignments may change
between vessels or vessel sections and land-side facilities and that
each may have different alarm systems, evacuation plans, and exit
routes. For example, a shipyard may be performing repair work on a Navy
vessel, a cruise liner, and a tug at the same time, all with different
alarm systems.
Regardless of the system, a primary responsibility of a fire watch
must be to recognize when to initiate a fire alarm procedure and begin
evacuation. A fire watch needs to know when a fire has progressed
beyond the incipient stage, when a fire alarm should be activated, and
when evacuation should be initiated. The employer must make sure that
fire watches are familiar with the type of alarm systems being used on
the vessel where they are working.
OSHA received no comment on proposed paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) through
(c)(2)(xii) of Sec. 1915.508 and they are being adopted as paragraphs
(e)(2)(iii) through (e)(2)(xii).
Proposed paragraph (c)(3) of Sec. 1915.508, now (e)(3), requires
the employer to ensure that each fire watch is trained to alert others
to exit the work area whenever: (i) The fire watch perceives an unsafe
condition associated with hot work; (ii) the fire watch perceives that
a hot worker is in danger; (iii) evacuation is ordered by the employer
or designated representative; or (iv) an evacuation signal such as an
alarm is activated. OSHA received no comment on these provisions, and
they are carried forward in the final rule renumbered.
Records
Proposed paragraph (d) of Sec. 1915.508, now renumbered as (f),
requires that the employer document that the training required by
paragraphs (a) through (e) has been accomplished. In Sec.
1915.508(f)(1), OSHA requires the employer to document the worker's
training by keeping a record of the worker's name, the name of the
trainer, the type of training, and the date(s) of the training. As
proposed, this requirement was separated into four separate provisions,
paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iv). In this final standard, OSHA has
collapsed all of these requirements into one provision, paragraph
(f)(1), in order to make them easier to read. No comments were received
on these four requirements, and OSHA is carrying them forward as
proposed, with the exception of the renumbering.
In addition, OSHA requires in paragraph (f)(2) of Sec. 1915.508
that the employer keep the documentation for at least one year and,
consistent with other OSHA standards, make the record available for
inspection and copying by OSHA personnel on request. The record that
must be kept is minimal. It can be kept as part of the worker's
personnel file, in a master file of training, or in any other format
the employer chooses. A record in an electronic file or database is
sufficient. However, regardless of how the record is kept, it must be
available for inspection by the persons authorized to see it. To be
available means that it can be easily found, so the employer must first
decide how the record is to be kept, and then make certain there is
easy access to it.
This record must be kept until it is replaced by a worker's new
training record, or for one year from when the record was made,
whichever is longest. In the case of a worker who will no longer
perform fire watch duties, or is no longer employed at the shipyard,
OSHA requires the employer to keep that employee's training record for
one year. This information may be relevant in determining whether the
employer's fire watch training program was adequate, and for research
on the effectiveness of the standard. OSHA sought comment on whether
the requirement for training record retention should be one or three
years. No comments were received on this issue, or any other aspect of
recordkeeping in this paragraph. Therefore, OSHA has renumbered the
proposed paragraphs, and carried them forward in the final standard.
Section 1915.509 Definitions
Most of the definitions in OSHA's proposed standard have been
carried forward unchanged in the final standard. Additions or
modifications have been made in response to various comments, and to
provide appropriate definitions for the new terms used in the final
standard. The following section discusses the terms for which comments
were received, the definitions added to the rule, the definitions OSHA
has modified to improve clarity, and the terms that have been included
in the final rule without change.
Comments on the Proposed Definitions
OSHA's proposed definition for ``fire response employee'' was ``a
shipyard employee who performs shipyard employment firefighting.''
Atlantic Marine submitted a comment stating that the proposed
definition was too broad (Ex. 21-17-1). ``This definition could mean
any employee that discharges a fire extinguisher at the shipyard,
including office and administrative personnel.'' OSHA agrees that the
term could be misinterpreted as defined. OSHA has modified the
definition of ``fire response employee'' in the final standard to read
``a shipyard employee who carries out duties and responsibilities of
shipyard firefighting in accordance with the fire safety plan. A fire
response employee may be a full-time employee, may occupy any position
or rank within the shipyard, and may engage in fire emergency
operations.''
Several commenters submitted comments on the definition of
``hazardous atmosphere'' (Exs. 21-3; 21-8; 21-14; 22-4; 22-15). NFPA
commented that the definition of ``hazardous atmosphere'' was taken
from a general industry standard (29 CFR 1910.146 Permit required
confined spaces) and inappropriately applied to a maritime industry
context in the proposed standard (Ex. 21-14). In addition, there was
concern that the use of the term ``dangerous atmosphere'' in addition
to ``hazardous atmosphere'' was unnecessary and could cause confusion
(Exs. 21-14; 22-4). The term ``dangerous atmosphere'' was used in the
proposed standard in the note to Sec. 1915.507(c)(4) and was defined
in
[[Page 55697]]
Sec. 1915.509. The term ``hazardous atmosphere'' was used in
Sec. Sec. 1915.506(a) and .508(b)(10) and defined in Sec. 1915.509.
OSHA agrees with these commenters. The term ``hazardous atmosphere'' in
Sec. Sec. 1915.506(a) and .508(b)(10) in the final standard has been
replaced with the term ``dangerous atmosphere'' and the definition of
``hazardous atmosphere'' in Sec. 1915.509 has been deleted. The
proposed definition of ``dangerous atmosphere'' has been carried
forward unchanged into the final standard.
The Connecticut Department of Labor raised a question regarding the
term ``incident management system'' (IMS), asking: ``Why does the
proposed standard change the customary verbiage of incident command
system to incident management system? Will this confuse fire
departments that will also be involved in the firefighting?'' (Ex. 22-
4)
While the Incident Command System (ICS) term is customary language
often used by firefighting professionals, OSHA proposed to use the IMS
term to be consistent with the terms currently in use by firefighting
organizations and training institutions. However, OSHA is modifying the
proposed definition of IMS in Sec. 1915.509 to match the definition
used in NFPA 1500-2002, which is: ``A system that defines the roles and
responsibilities to be assumed by personnel and the operating
procedures to be used in the management and direction of emergency
operations; the system is also referred to as an incident command
system (ICS)''. This modification does not change the meaning or intent
of the proposed term, and is more consistent with the NFPA's use of the
term IMS. For more discussion, see Sec. 1915.505(d)(3) above.
Definitions Added to the Final Rule
Marine Chemist Services, Inc. suggested that a new definition be
added for ``approved fire watch training course.'' As addressed in the
discussion of Sec. 1915.508 above, OSHA will be altering Sec.
1915.508(c)(1) to require training to be given by a qualified
instructor. OSHA believes that there is no need for an additional
definition for ``approved fire watch training course'' and has not
added this term to the definition section of the final standard.
NGNN suggested that OSHA add a description or a definition for
``drop test'' in order to clarify the term (Ex. 21-8). Drop test is a
term found in Sec. 1915.503(b)(2)(iv) ``* * * and a drop test is done
using gauges or other positive means. * * *'' NGNN's suggested
definition was:
Method utilizing gauges to ensure the integrity of an oxygen
fuel gas system. Prior to lighting a torch, but after all
connections have been safely made, adjust the operating pressures by
turning the adjusting screws clockwise. The pressure at the
regulators should be set slightly higher than the required tip
pressures. Close the manifold or cylinder supply valves and watch
the gauges for at least sixty (60) seconds. Any drop in pressure
indicates a leak. Do not turn on the supply valve again until the
leak has been repaired. Other than pressure testing gas lines while
submerged in water at test shops, only the use of pressure gauges
provides a positive measure of line integrity.
OSHA agrees with NGNN that a definition would be appropriate.
However, OSHA has modified the definition of ``drop test'' in the final
standard to read:
* * * [M]ethod utilizing gauges to ensure the integrity of an
oxygen fuel gas burning system. The method requires that the burning
torch is installed to one end of the oxygen and fuel gas lines and
then the gauges are attached to the other end of the hoses. The
manifold or cylinder supply valve is opened and the system is
pressurized. The manifold or cylinder supply valve is then closed
and the gauges are watched for at least sixty (60) seconds. Any drop
in pressure indicates a leak. * * *
The final sentences of the NGNN suggestion are procedural rather
than part of the definition and are therefore unnecessary.
OSHA has added three additional new definitions to the final
standard. The definitions of ``class II standpipe system,'' ``incipient
stage fire,'' and ``small hose system'' have been added for clarity.
These definitions are identical to the definitions used in 29 CFR
1910.155(c). In the NPRM (67 FR 76241), OSHA referred to ``incipient
stage fire'' as a definition used in Part 1910 that would also be
utilized for this subpart. There were no comments received on this
definition, nor any objections to using this definition from Part 1910.
OSHA has also included ``class II standpipe system'' and ``small hose
system'' in this final standard because they are technical terms used
within the definition of incipient stage fire. Including these
definitions in the final standard provides greater clarity and reduces
the need to reference Part 1910 standards in the final standard.
Definitions Modified by OSHA
In order to be more compatible with the regulatory text, and the
remainder of Part 1915, OSHA has revised the following definitions for
clarity and uniformity. The proposed rule defined a ``designated area''
as ``an area established for hot work after an assessment of fire
hazard potential of facilities, vessels, or vessel sections such as a
fabrication shop.'' OSHA has simplified this definition to define a
designated area as ``an area established for ongoing hot work after an
inspection has determined that the area is free of fire hazards.''
The proposed definition of ``emergency operations'' defined the
activities performed by a fire response organization. The last portion
of the definition included examples of special operations that may be
performed, such as HAZMAT release mitigation, standby for flight
operations and off-site fires. Because special operations could include
any number of activities in addition to these examples, and the
examples did not add clarity to the definition, they have been removed.
``Fire suppression'' defines the activities involved in controlling
and extinguishing fires. The proposed definition included a list of the
hazards associated with fire suppression. OSHA realizes that the act of
fire suppression creates many hazards, and that employees must be
protected from those hazards. However, the Agency has deleted examples
of these hazards from the definition since they are not a necessary
part of the definition of fire suppression.
``Shipyard firefighting'' is the activity of rescue, fire
suppression, and property conservation in all shipyard workplaces. The
proposed definition included the sentence: ``Shipyard firefighting
includes any fire that requires a fire attack hose line of 1\1/2\ inch
diameter or larger to fight, and self-contained breathing apparatus by
responders.'' OSHA did not want to imply that the definition of
shipyard firefighting was limited to the use of specific equipment.
Therefore, the final definition does not include examples of specific
equipment.
Definitions Deleted by OSHA
OSHA has deleted three proposed definitions from the final
standard; the terms ``affected employee,'' ``hot work,'' and ``shipyard
employment.'' No comments were received on these definitions. The
Agency decided to not define ``affected employees'' since employers can
make the determination of who is affected. The terms ``hot work'' and
``shipyard employment'' are both currently defined in Sec. 1915.4 for
the entire part 1915. OSHA has concluded it is unnecessary to define
them again for this subpart.
Definitions Included Without Change
OSHA did not receive comments on the remaining definitions and
believes that all of the terms used in this subpart are ``terms of the
industry'' and are universally recognized by shipyard employees and
employers. These terms
[[Page 55698]]
include ``alarm,'' ``alarm system,'' ``body harness,'' ``contract
employer,'' ``designated area,'' ``fire hazard,'' ``fire protection,''
``fire response,'' ``fire response organization,'' ``fire watch,''
``fixed extinguishing system,'' ``flammable liquid,'' ``hazardous
substance,'' ``hose systems,'' ``host employer,'' ``inerting,''
``interior structural firefighting operations,'' ``multi-employer
workplace,'' ``personal alert safety system,'' ``physically isolated,''
``physical isolation,'' ``protected space,'' ``proximity
firefighting,'' ``qualified instructor,'' ``rescue,'' and
``standpipe.'' Therefore, OSHA has adopted these proposed definitions
in this final standard.
IV. Summary of the Final Economic and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Introduction
OSHA's Final Economic and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis addresses
issues related to the costs, benefits, technological feasibility, and
economic impacts (including small business impacts) of the Agency's
``Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment'' standard. This analysis also
evaluates the non-regulatory alternatives to this standard.
The final standard will affect approximately 669 employers and
about 98,000 employees in the shipbuilding, ship repair and
shipbreaking industries. OSHA estimates that the final standard will
prevent 1 death and 292 workplace injuries (102 lost workday injuries
and 190 non-lost workday injuries) annually. The Agency estimates
approximately $6.2 million in cost savings from these 292 injuries.
OSHA has determined that this final standard is not an economically
significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and not a major rule
under the Congressional Review provisions of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. OSHA has provided the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs with an assessment of the costs,
benefits, and alternatives, as required by section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O.
12866, which is summarized below. Executive Order (EO) 12866 requires
regulatory agencies to conduct an economic analysis for rules that meet
certain criteria. The most frequently used criterion under EO 12866 is
that the rule will impose annual costs on the economy of $100 million
or more. Neither the benefits nor the costs of this rule exceed $100
million.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended in 1996,
requires OSHA to determine whether the Agency's regulatory actions will
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
OSHA's analysis indicates that the final rule will not have significant
impacts on a substantial number of small entities. OSHA's Final
Economic Analysis (FEA) and regulatory flexibility analysis include: A
description of the industries potentially affected by the standard; an
evaluation of the risks addressed; an assessment of the benefits
attributable to the final standard; a determination of the
technological feasibility of the requirements of the standard; an
estimate of the costs employers will incur to comply with the standard;
A determination of the economic feasibility of compliance with the
standard; and an analysis of the economic and other impacts associated
with this rulemaking, including those on small businesses. The FEA has
been provided to the docket as Ex. 23. This section of the preamble
summarizes the results of that analysis.
Affected Industries
The final Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment standard will
affect all establishments in the shipbuilding, shipbreaking, and ship
repair industries. These include large shipyards, government shipyards,
and shipyards operated under Navy contracts, operations owning a dock
or dry dock, and the vast majority of small firms that perform
shipbuilding and repair work, such as metal fabricators, painters,
asbestos removal, etc., who do not own or rent docks. For purposes of
this analysis, OSHA has defined small firms as: (1) Firms with fewer
than 1,000 employees (the Small Business Administration (SBA)
definition of small businesses in this sector); (2) firms with fewer
than 250 employees (the definition of small business recommended by the
negotiated rulemaking committee); and (3) firms with fewer than 20
employees. OSHA has based its estimates of number of firms,
establishments, employment, and wages on general Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) and Department of Commerce data for the standard
industrial classification (SIC) codes for shipbuilding and ship repair
3731 and shipbreaking 4499. OSHA has based its estimates concerning
revenues of firms on SBA data, and concerning profit rates on Robert
Morris Associate's data. Table IV-1 shows the total number of
establishments, number of firms, employment, and revenues and profits
per firm affected by the rule. As the table shows, there are 717
establishments owned by 669 firms in the industries. The industries
employ 97,822 workers, of whom 70 percent are production employees.
The Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) commented that there may be
considerably more employers with ``[n]o more than 250 employees who
have employees engaged in ``shipyard employment'' but that are not
included in the government's shipbuilding and shipbreaking
categories.'' (Ex. 21-9). PVA further stated: ``If your estimate of 621
affected companies with no more than 250 employees is too low, as we
suspect it is, then you have underestimated the total costs and
economic impacts of the proposed standard.'' OSHA derived the estimate
of establishments having less than 250 employees (alternate definition
of a small firm) from a manipulation of the SBA and Bureau of the
Census (BOC) County Business Patterns data. This involved OSHA applying
the distribution of County Business Patterns for the categories of 100-
249 employees and 250-499 employees to the profile data for the SBA
100-499 size classification. Having thus estimated SBA profile data for
the firm size classification of 250-499 employees, OSHA subtracted
these data totals from the totals for the size classification 1-500
employees presented in Table II-1 in the FEA; this calculation yielded
SBA totals for a size category of 1-250 employees shown in Column 9 in
Table II-2 in the FEA. (Ex. 23). This was necessary because neither
data source publishes establishment counts using this size
classification. PVA did not supply OSHA with the necessary data to
refute the Agency's findings, thus OSHA is continuing to use its
mathematical method of estimation with the SBA data using the BOC
distribution percentages. In summary, OSHA has used the best available
data for the purpose of estimating the number of affected entities. It
is possible that these data omit some firms that engaged in
shipbuilding, shipbreaking and ship repair--particularly establishments
that do this as only a small part of their total work. However, there
are no data available on the number of such establishments. Conversely,
OSHA may have overestimated the costs by including some employees as
working in establishments that are primarily engaged in shipbuilding,
shipbreaking, and repair when they actually work in other industries.
[[Page 55699]]
Table IV-1.--Industrial Profile of Employees and Establishments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entire
Industry characteristic 1-19 1-250 1-1,000 >1,000 affected
Employees Employees Employees Employees industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Establishments............ 412 621 697 20 717
Total Firms..................... 412 607 660 9 669
Total Employees................. 2,305 14,774 39,063 58,759 97,822
Revenues Per Firm ($1,000's).... $653 $2,353 $5,907 $718,166 $15,540
Profits Per Firm ($1,000)....... $24 $85 $213 $25,854 $559
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA.
Evaluation of Risk and Potential Benefits
For this Final Economic Analysis, OSHA used the same approach as in
the Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA) used in the proposed rule. The
PEA involved developing a profile of the risks facing workers in
shipyards that might be affected by the standard. OSHA's risk profile
for exposure to fire-based risks in shipyards is based on data from the
BLS' National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, data from the BLS'
Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, and an analysis of OSHA
fatality/catastrophe inspection data obtained from the Agency's
Integrated Management Information System.
OSHA anticipates that the final standard will significantly reduce
the number of fire and explosion related incidents and resulting
injuries and fatalities currently reported in the shipyard industry.
OSHA believes that the final standard's requirements for inspection
prior to hot work, fire watches, planning, and training will help to
save lives and prevent injuries in the shipyard workforce. OSHA
estimates that approximately 1 fatality, 110 injuries involving days
away from work, and 204 injuries not involving days away from work
occur annually among shipyard workers due to fire and explosions. This
is the current industry risk baseline used in this analysis. OSHA
projects that full compliance with the proposed standard would annually
prevent 0.88 fatalities, 102 injuries involving days away from work,
and 190 injuries not involving days away from work. No comments were
received regarding these estimated benefits.
In addition to saving lives and improving overall safety in
shipyards, OSHA believes that full compliance with the final standard
would yield substantial cost savings to parties within and connected
with the industry and ultimately to society as a whole. These monetized
benefits take the form of reductions in employer and insurer accident-
related costs in several areas: Value of lost output associated with
temporary total disabilities and permanent partial disabilities, an
income-based measure derived from estimates of workers' compensation
indemnity payments; reductions in accident-related medical costs;
administrative expenses incurred by workers' compensation insurers; and
indirect costs related to productivity losses, work stoppages, and
accident investigations and reports. Applying data from the insurance
industry on the direct costs of accidents and data from the literature
on the indirect costs of accidents and other administrative-related
costs to OSHA's preliminary estimate of avoided injuries, the Agency
monetized the value of the cost savings employers and society will
accrue by avoiding these injuries. OSHA estimates that annual costs
savings of $6.2 million will result from compliance with the final
standard. These savings are those associated with injuries due to
fires. OSHA did not attempt to quantify the cost savings resulting from
reduced fire damage to property and reduced need to respond to fires.
Some commenters questioned: ``[H]ow can there be a general savings
for the shipyards if they are spending more money on both training and
equipment in order to meet the new requirements of the proposed rule?''
[Exs. 21-4, 21-5, 21-6, 21-7, 21-13, 21-16, 22-1, and 22-2]. This
general savings (or cost savings) estimate is based on the estimated
reduction in injury-related costs due to the standard (developed in the
Benefits chapter). This estimate includes indemnity payments, lost
income, medical costs, and administrative costs for both temporary
total disability and permanent partial disability injuries. These cost
savings accrue partially to individual employers, partially to the
industry as a whole, partially to the government in the form of reduced
taxes, and partially to injured employees. Thus, the cost savings are
not necessarily savings to employers, but savings to society as a
whole.
On the other hand, the annualized compliance costs estimates are
annualized costs to employers, discounted using a 7 percent rate over
ten years, which the employer is projected to spend to comply with the
standard. These estimates are based on the employment and establishment
counts in the Industrial Profile and the dollar costs needed to comply
with the standard. In addition to the employment and establishment
counts, these estimates also include non-compliance rates to account
for establishments that have already complied with the requirements.
Thus, OSHA estimates that the final standard will prevent
approximately 292 injuries and one death per year. As a result of
prevention of the injuries, OSHA estimates that there will be direct
cost savings to society of $6.2 million per year, excluding savings
associated with reduced property damage and reduced fire response
costs. For informational purposes, OSHA also estimates $6.3 million in
cost savings from the 1 prevented death, for a total of $12.5 million
in monetized benefits.
Technological Feasibility and Compliance Costs
Consistent with the legal framework established by the OSH Act,
Executive Order 12866, and court decisions, OSHA has assessed the
technological feasibility of the fire protection in shipyards standard.
The standard does not require any practices not already undertaken in
many shipyards today. Moreover, the final standard is based on a
consensus draft recommended to the Agency by a negotiated rulemaking
committee (the Committee) consisting of representatives from labor,
government, and industry. These representatives included small
employers who would be affected by changes to the maritime regulations.
The Committee reached consensus on the language of the draft, thereby
implicitly acknowledging the feasibility of the proposed revisions to
the standard. Therefore, based on the fact that many firms in the
industry are already implementing the controls and practices required
by the standard and that the Committee reached consensus on the
proposed revisions, OSHA has determined that the final fire protection
[[Page 55700]]
in shipyard employment standard is technologically feasible.
OSHA developed estimates of the costs of compliance for shipyard
employers subject to the final standard. To develop these estimates,
OSHA first examined the extent to which shipyard employers were already
in compliance with the requirements of the standard as a result of
existing OSHA requirements, compliance with rules of other parties
(such as the U.S. Navy in some shipyards), and compliance with
voluntary codes and good practices. Eliminating provisions for which
there is already substantial compliance, OSHA arrived at the list of
activities for which shipyard employers would incur costs shown in
Table IV-2. Table IV-2 shows that the annualized costs of the final
standard are $4.3 million per year. Ninety-one percent of the costs are
associated with fire watch-related provisions; most of these costs are
for posting additional fire watch personnel in situations in which fire
watches are not currently being posted.
Many commenters stated that: ``[T]he analysis estimates that for
the industry as a whole, the average cost per employee for training is
around $1.'' (Exs. 21-4, 21-5, 21-6, 21-7, 21-13, 22-1, 22-2). These
same commenters state that the additional requirements for annual fire
safety and fire watch training would increase the training time from
0.5 hours to 1 hour per employee, suggesting a far greater additional
cost than $1 per employee. One commenter stated that it employs 117
employees with a training cost of $850 per employee (Ex. 21-13). OSHA
assumed that large establishments are in compliance with the training
requirements, thus they would not incur new training cost burdens. Even
in smaller size establishments, OSHA estimated that some employers now
comply with these training requirements. (Table V-1 on page V-4 of the
FEA (Ex. 23)). Further, not all employees need fire watch training.
Finally, OSHA computed an annualized cost in which it assumed that most
training occurs in the initial year and would not need to be repeated
for all workers. These costs only apply to small and medium size
establishments that were estimated to not be in compliance with the
final standard. Therefore, the similarity between the estimate for Fire
Watch Training ($95,204) in Table V-2 of the proposed rule and the
number of estimated employees (97,822) in Table V-1 of the proposed
rule is merely coincidence (67 FR 76242-76243).
In regard to the provisions on training and use of fire watches,
the majority of shipbuilding and repair activity is for the U.S. Navy.
The Navy already requires its shipyard contractors to employ fire
watches for hot work. The Agency also received comment on the cost of
supplying pressure gauges for drop tests of fuel gas and oxygen hoses
(Exs. 21-4; 21-5; 21-6; 21-7; 21-13; 21-17; 22-2). The final standard
does not require employers to perform drop tests with gauges, since
hoses can simply be rolled back to the supply manifold. Since this is
the least cost alternative, the Agency did not include estimates of
costs for gauges.
Table IV-2.--Total Annualized Compliance Cost Per Requirement for the
Proposed Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized
Requirement cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posting Fire Watches.................................... $3,789,057
Safe Work Practices..................................... 245,839
Fire Watch Written Program.............................. 36,546
Fire Response Policy.................................... 11,630
Fire Safety Plan........................................ 36,546
Fire Watch Training..................................... 95,204
Fire Safety Plan Review/General Training................ 37,327
Fire Protection Systems Training........................ 9,642
Fire Response Training.................................. 49,430
---------------
Total............................................... 4,261,222
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numbers do not total due to rounding.
Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA.
Economic Impacts
OSHA analyzed the impacts of these compliance costs on firms in the
shipbuilding and repair sector. In order to do this, OSHA determined
costs as a percentage of revenues and costs as a percentage of profits.
These two measures (in percent) correspond to two assumptions used by
economists to bound the range of possible impacts: The assumption of
no-cost pass-through, i.e., that employers will be unable to pass any
of the costs of compliance forward to their customers (compliance costs
as a percentage of profits), and the assumption of full-cost pass-
through (compliance costs as a percentage of revenues), i.e., that
employers will be able to pass all of the costs of compliance forward
to their customers. As summarized in Table IV-3 below, OSHA estimates
that, if affected firms in the shipbuilding sector were forced to
absorb these compliance costs entirely from profits (a highly unlikely
scenario), profits would be reduced by an average of 1.14 percent. If,
at the other extreme, affected firms were able to pass all of these
compliance costs forward to their customers, OSHA projects that the
price (revenue) increase required to pay for these costs would be less
than 0.1 percent (0.04 percent). Given the minimal impact on both
prices and profits, OSHA concludes that the regulation is economically
feasible. To the contrary, NNGN stated in its comments that it has
serious concerns with several aspects of the proposed rule that will
result in more than $35 million annually to its company with little to
no added benefit to its health and safety program or the industry at
large (Ex. 21-8). NGNN is a large shipyard with ``845 trained and
qualified fire wardens whose primary responsibilities are fire
prevention and emergency evacuation and 3,325 fire watch qualified
employees whose primary responsibility is fire prevention and response
in support of a specific hot work job.'' (Id.) In addition, the company
reports that it has ``long-standing fire safety practices that in many
cases go beyond that required in existing regulations, as well as the
proposed standard.'' OSHA is perplexed by NGNN's assertion that the
rule will result in costs of more than $35 million annually to this
company. The Agency assumed that this firm was in compliance with the
requirements of the final standard, which seems to be validated by its
comments. Thus, this company would not incur a high compliance cost
burden and its economic impact would be minimal.
Table IV-3.--Economic Impacts for the Final Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Compliance
costs as a costs as a
Firm size percentage percentage
of revenues of profits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Firms..................................... 0.04 1.14
1-19 Employees................................ 0.11 3.09
1-250 employees............................... 0.07 1.83
1-1000 Employees (SBA Definition)............. 0.06 1.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended in 1996 (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), requires regulatory agencies to determine whether
regulatory actions will adversely affect small entities. SBA defines
small entities in terms of number of employees or annual receipts. For
employers in SIC 3731 (shipbuilding and repair), small firms are
defined by SBA as those with fewer than 1,000 employees. As shown in
Table IV-3, for firms with fewer than 1,000 employees, costs are 1.61
percent
[[Page 55701]]
of profits and 0.06 percent of revenues. OSHA also examined costs as a
percentage of profits and revenues for firms with fewer than 250
employees, as recommended by the Committee, and for firms with fewer
than 20 employees to see whether there might be significant impacts on
the very smallest firms. For firms with fewer than 250 employees, costs
were 1.83 percent of profits and 0.07 percent of revenues. For firms
with fewer than 20 employees, costs were 3.09 percent of profits and
0.11 percent of revenues.
A major source of these disparate impacts is lower levels of
baseline compliance by small firms. Although the economic impacts on
the smallest size class of employers are low, they are somewhat higher
than for larger employers.
OSHA has set the criteria that if costs exceed one percent of
revenues or five percent of profits, then the impact on small entities
is considered significant for purposes of complying with the RFA. For
all of the classes of affected small firms in the shipbuilding and
repair and shipbreaking sectors, costs were less than one percent of
revenues and five percent of profits. OSHA therefore certifies that
this regulation will not have an economically significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The Agency did not receive any
substantive comments on this portion of the analysis.
Non-Regulatory Alternatives
OSHA concludes that economic and social alternatives to a federal
workplace standard fail to adequately protect workers from the hazards
associated with fires in the shipbuilding and repair and shipbreaking
industries. Tort liability laws and workers' compensation provide some
protection, but institutional factors limit effective means of
addressing the significant costs of occupational injuries and
illnesses. Therefore, OSHA finds that this final standard will provide
the necessary remedy.
V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
In accord with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, OSHA has examined
the regulatory requirements of the final rule to determine if it will
have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small
entities. As indicated in the previous section of this preamble, the
final standard does not increase employers' compliance costs, and may
even reduce the regulatory burden on all affected employers, both large
and small. Accordingly, the Agency certifies that the final standard
does not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of
small entities.
VI. Environmental Impact Assessment
In accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), Council on
Environmental Quality regulations (40 U.S.C. part 1500 et seq.), and
the Department of Labor's NEPA regulations (29 CFR part 11), the
Assistant Secretary has determined that this final rule will not have a
significant impact on the external environment.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule contains several collections of information
(paperwork) requirements that are subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA-95), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and its regulation at 5 CFR 1320. A
collection of information is defined in PRA[n x dash]95 to
mean ``the obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring
the disclosure to third parties or the pubic of facts or opinions by or
for an agency regardless of form or format.'' (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A).
In the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA asked for comment on
each of the paperwork requirements in Subpart P (67 FR 76243-76246).
OSHA received no comments on the paperwork burdens or OSHA's estimation
of those burdens. Therefore, the Agency has made no changes to the
paperwork package. OSHA estimates the total burden hours associated
with all of the collection of information requirements at 5,344 burden
hours in the first year and 4,788 burden hours in the second and
subsequent years.
Potential respondents are not required to respond to the
information collection requirements until they have been approved by
OMB, and a currently valid OMB control number is displayed. OMB is
currently reviewing OSHA's request for approval of the 29 CFR Part 1915
Subpart P information collections. OSHA will publish a subsequent
Federal Register document when OMB takes further action on the
information collection requirements in the shipyard fire protection
rule.
VIII. Unfunded Mandates
For the purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, this
rule does not include any Federal mandate that may result in increased
expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, or increased
expenditures by the private sector of more than $100 million in any
year.
IX. Federalism
OSHA has reviewed this final rule in accordance with the Executive
Order on Federalism (Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255) which requires
that agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from limiting state
policy options, consult with states prior to taking any actions that
would restrict state policy options, and take such actions only when
there is clear constitutional authority and the presence of a problem
of national scope. The Order provides for preemption of State law only
if there is a clear Congressional intent for the Agency to do so. Any
such preemption is to be limited to the extent possible.
Section 18 of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) expresses
Congress' intent to preempt state laws where OSHA has promulgated
occupational safety and health standards. Under the OSH Act, a state
can avoid preemption on issues covered by Federal standards only if it
submits, and obtains Federal approval of, a plan for the development of
such standards and their enforcement (State-Plan state). 29 U.S.C. 667.
Occupational safety and health standards developed by such State-Plan
states must, among other things, be at least as effective in providing
safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal
standards. As Congress has expressed a clear intent for OSHA standards
to preempt State job safety and health rules in areas addressed by OSHA
standards, in States without OSHA-approved State plans, this rule
limits State policy options only to the extent required by law. In
States with OSHA-approved State Plans, this action does not
significantly limit State policy options.
X. State-Plan States
The 26 States or U.S. Territories with their own OSHA approved
occupational safety and health plans must revise their standards to
reflect this final standard or show OSHA why there is no need for
action, e.g., because an existing state standard covering this area is
already ``at least as effective as'' the new Federal standard. The
state standard must be at least as effective as this final standard,
must be applicable to both the private and public (State and local
government employees) sectors, and must be completed within six months
of the publication date of this final Federal rule.
Currently only five States (California, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont,
and Washington) with their own State plans cover private sector onshore
maritime activities in whole or in part. Federal OSHA enforces maritime
standards
[[Page 55702]]
offshore in all States and provides onshore coverage of maritime
activities in Federal OSHA States, in the five States above, to the
extent not covered by them, and in all the other State Plan States:
Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut (plan covers only State and local
government employees), Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland,
Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey (plan covers only State and local
government employees), New Mexico, New York (plan covers only State and
local government employees), North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Virgin Islands (plan covers only
territorial government employees), and Wyoming. All State Plans must
also extend protection to any public sector workers engaged in maritime
activities.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1915
Fire protection, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference,
Longshore and harbor workers, Occupational safety and health, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Shipyards, Vessels.
XI. Authority and Signature
This document was prepared under the direction of John L. Henshaw,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210. It is issued pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657);
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR 65008); and 29 Part 1911.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 7th day of September, 2004.
John L. Henshaw,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
0
OSHA amends 29 CFR Part 1915 as follows:
PART 1915--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 1915 is revised as follows:
Authority: Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation
Act (33 U.S.C. 941); secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of
Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48
FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR
50017), or 5-2002 (67 FR 65008) as applicable; 29 CFR Part 1911.
0
2. In Sec. 1915.5, add paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 1915.5 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(d)(4) The following material is available for purchase from the
National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, PO Box 9101,
Quincy, MA 02269-9101:
(i) NFPA 1981-1997, Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained
Breathing Apparatus for the Fire Service, IBR approved for Sec.
1915.505(e)(3)(v).
(ii) NFPA 1971-2000, Standard on Protective Ensemble for Structural
Fire Fighting, IBR approved for Sec. 1915.505(e)(4)(ii).
(iii) NFPA 1976-2000, Standard on Protective Ensemble for Proximity
Fire Fighting, IBR approved for Sec. 1915.505(e)(5).
(iv) NFPA 1982-1998, Standard on Personal Alert Safety Systems
(PASS), IBR approved for Sec. 1915.505(e)(6)(ii).
(v) NFPA 1983-2001, Standard on Fire Service Life Safety Rope and
System Components, IBR approved for Sec. 1915.505(e)(7)(i).
(vi) NFPA 10-1998, Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers, IBR
approved for Sec. 1915.507(b)(1).
(vii) NFPA 14-2000, Standard for the Installation of Standpipe,
Private Hydrant, and Hose Systems, IBR approved for Sec.
1915.507(b)(2) and (d)(1).
(viii) NFPA 72-1999, National Fire Alarm Code, IBR approved for
Sec. 1915.507(c)(6).
(ix) NFPA 13-1999, Installation of Sprinkler Systems, IBR approved
for Sec. 1915.507(d)(2).
(x) NFPA 750-2000, Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems,
IBR approved for Sec. 1915.507(d)(2).
(xi) NFPA 25-2002, Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-
Based Fire Protection Systems, IBR approved for Sec. 1915.507(d)(2).
(xii) NFPA 15-2001, Standard for Water Spray Fixed Systems for Fire
Protection, IBR approved for Sec. 1915.507(d)(3).
(xiii) NFPA 11-1998, Standard for Low-Expansion Foam, IBR approved
for Sec. 1915.507(d)(3).
(xiv) NFPA 11A-1999, Standard for Medium- and High-Expansion Foam
Systems, IBR approved for Sec. 1915.507(d)(3).
(xv) NFPA 17-2002, Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems,
IBR approved for Sec. 1915.507(d)(4).
(xvi) NFPA 12-2000, Standard on Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing
Systems, IBR approved for Sec. 1915.507(d)(5).
(xvii) NFPA 12A-1997, Standard on Halon 1301 Fire Extinguishing
Systems, IBR approved for Sec. 1915.507(d)(5).
(xviii) NFPA 2001-2000, Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing
Systems, IBR approved for Sec. 1915.507(d)(5).
(xix) NFPA 1403-2002, Standard on Live Fire Training Evolutions,
IBR approved for Sec. 1915.508(d)(8).
0
3. Sec. 1915.52 [Removed]
Remove Sec. 1915.52.
0
4. Part 1915 is amended by adding a new subpart, subpart P, to read as
follows:
Subpart P--Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment
Sec.
1915.501 General provisions.
1915.502 Fire safety plan.
1915.503 Precautions for hot work.
1915.504 Fire watches.
1915.505 Fire response.
1915.506 Hazards of fixed extinguishing systems on board vessels and
vessel sections.
1915.507 Land-side fire protection systems.
1915.508 Training.
1915.509 Definitions applicable to this subpart.
Appendix A to Subpart P--Model Fire Safety Plan (Non-Mandatory)
Sec. 1915.501 General provisions.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of the standard in this subpart is to
require employers to protect all employees from fire hazards in
shipyard employment, including employees engaged in fire response
activities.
(b) Scope. This subpart covers employers with employees engaged in
shipyard employment aboard vessels and vessel sections, and on land-
side operations regardless of geographic location.
(c) Employee participation. The employer must provide ways for
employees or employee representatives, or both to participate in
developing and periodically reviewing programs and policies adopted to
comply with this subpart.
(d) Multi-employer worksites. (1) Host employer responsibilities.
The host employer's responsibilities are to:
(i) Inform all employers at the worksite about the content of the
fire safety plan including hazards, controls, fire safety and health
rules, and emergency procedures;
(ii) Make sure the safety and health responsibilities for fire
protection are assigned as appropriate to other employers at the
worksite; and
(iii) If there is more than one host employer, each host employer
must communicate relevant information about fire-related hazards to
other host employers. When a vessel owner or operator (temporarily)
becomes a host shipyard employer by directing the work of ships' crews
on repair or modification of the vessel or by hiring other contractors
directly, the vessel owner or operator must also comply with these
provisions for host employers.
[[Page 55703]]
(2) Contract employer responsibilities. The contract employer's
responsibilities are to:
(i) Make sure that the host employer knows about the fire-related
hazards associated with the contract employer's work and what the
contract employer is doing to address them; and
(ii) Advise the host employer of any previously unidentified fire-
related hazards that the contract employer identifies at the worksite.
Sec. 1915.502 Fire safety plan.
(a) Employer responsibilities. The employer must develop and
implement a written fire safety plan that covers all the actions that
employers and employees must take to ensure employee safety in the
event of a fire. (See Appendix A to this subpart for a Model Fire
Safety Plan.)
(b) Plan elements. The employer must include the following
information in the fire safety plan:
(1) Identification of the significant fire hazards;
(2) Procedures for recognizing and reporting unsafe conditions;
(3) Alarm procedures;
(4) Procedures for notifying employees of a fire emergency;
(5) Procedures for notifying fire response organizations of a fire
emergency;
(6) Procedures for evacuation;
(7) Procedures to account for all employees after an evacuation;
and
(8) Names, job titles, or departments for individuals who can be
contacted for further information about the plan.
(c) Reviewing the plan with employees. The employer must review the
plan with each employee at the following times:
(1) Within 90 days of December 14, 2004, for employees who are
currently working;
(2) Upon initial assignment for new employees; and
(3) When the actions the employee must take under the plan change
because of a change in duties or a change in the plan.
(d) Additional employer requirements. The employer also must:
(1) Keep the plan accessible to employees, employee
representatives, and OSHA;
(2) Review and update the plan whenever necessary, but at least
annually;
(3) Document that affected employees have been informed about the
plan as required by paragraph (c) of this section; and
(4) Ensure any outside fire response organization that the employer
expects to respond to fires at the employer's worksite has been given a
copy of the current plan.
(e) Contract employers. Contract employers in shipyard employment
must have a fire safety plan for their employees, and this plan must
comply with the host employer's fire safety plan.
Sec. 1915.503 Precautions for hot work.
(a) General requirements. (1) Designated Areas. The employer may
designate areas for hot work in sites such as vessels, vessel sections,
fabricating shops, and subassembly areas that are free of fire hazards.
(2) Non-designated Areas. (i) Before authorizing hot work in a non-
designated area, the employer must visually inspect the area where hot
work is to be performed, including adjacent spaces, to ensure the area
is free of fire hazards, unless a Marine Chemist's certificate or
Shipyard Competent Person's log is used for authorization.
(ii) The employer shall authorize employees to perform hot work
only in areas that are free of fire hazards, or that have been
controlled by physical isolation, fire watches, or other positive
means.
Note to paragraph (a)(2): The requirements of paragraph (a)(2)
apply to all hot work operations in shipyard employment except those
covered by Sec. 1915.14.
(b) Specific requirements. (1) Maintaining fire hazard-free
conditions. The employer must keep all hot work areas free of new
hazards that may cause or contribute to the spread of fire. Unexpected
energizing and energy release are covered by 29 CFR 1915.181, Subpart
L. Exposure to toxic and hazardous substances is covered in 29 CFR
1915.1000 through 1915.1450, subpart Z.
(2) Fuel gas and oxygen supply lines and torches. The employer must
make sure that:
(i) No unattended fuel gas and oxygen hose lines or torches are in
confined spaces;
(ii) No unattended charged fuel gas and oxygen hose lines or
torches are in enclosed spaces for more than 15 minutes; and
(iii) All fuel gas and oxygen hose lines are disconnected at the
supply manifold at the end of each shift;
(iv) All disconnected fuel gas and oxygen hose lines are rolled
back to the supply manifold or to open air to disconnect the torch; or
extended fuel gas and oxygen hose lines are not reconnected at the
supply manifold unless the lines are given a positive means of
identification when they were first connected and the lines are tested
using a drop test or other positive means to ensure the integrity of
fuel gas and oxygen burning system.
Sec. 1915.504 Fire watches.
(a) Written fire watch policy. The employer must create and keep
current a written policy that specifies the following requirements for
employees performing fire watch in the workplace:
(1) The training employees must be given (Sec. 1915.508(c)
contains detailed fire watch training requirements);
(2) The duties employees are to perform;
(3) The equipment employees must be given; and
(4) The personal protective equipment (PPE) that must be made
available and worn as required by 29 CFR Part 1915, Subpart I.
(b) Posting fire watches. The employer must post a fire watch if
during hot work any of the following conditions are present:
(1) Slag, weld splatter, or sparks might pass through an opening
and cause a fire;
(2) Fire-resistant guards or curtains are not used to prevent
ignition of combustible materials on or near decks, bulkheads,
partitions, or overheads;
(3) Combustible material closer than 35 ft. (10.7m) to the hot work
in either the horizontal or vertical direction cannot be removed,
protected with flame-proof covers, or otherwise shielded with metal or
fire-resistant guards or curtains;
(4) The hot work is carried out on or near insulation, combustible
coatings, or sandwich-type construction that cannot be shielded, cut
back, or removed, or in a space within a sandwich type construction
that cannot be inerted;
(5) Combustible materials adjacent to the opposite sides of
bulkheads, decks, overheads, metal partitions, or sandwich-type
construction may be ignited by conduction or radiation;
(6) The hot work is close enough to cause ignition through heat
radiation or conduction on the following:
(i) Insulated pipes, bulkheads, decks, partitions, or overheads; or
(ii) Combustible materials and/or coatings;
(7) The work is close enough to unprotected combustible pipe or
cable runs to cause ignition; or
(8) A Marine Chemist, a Coast Guard-authorized person, or a
shipyard Competent Person, as defined in 29 CFR Part 1915, Subpart B,
requires that a fire watch be posted.
(c) Assigning employees to fire watch duty. (1) The employer must
not assign other duties to a fire watch while the hot work is in
progress.
[[Page 55704]]
(2) Employers must ensure that employees assigned to fire watch
duty:
(i) Have a clear view of and immediate access to all areas included
in the fire watch;
(ii) Are able to communicate with workers exposed to hot work;
(iii) Are authorized to stop work if necessary and restore safe
conditions within the hot work area;
(iv) Remain in the hot work area for at least 30 minutes after
completion of the hot work, unless the employer or its representative
surveys the exposed area and makes a determination that there is no
further fire hazard;
(v) Are trained to detect fires that occur in areas exposed to the
hot work;
(vi) Attempt to extinguish any incipient stage fires in the hot
work area that are within the capability of available equipment and
within the fire watch's training qualifications, as defined in Sec.
1915.508;
(vii) Alert employees of any fire beyond the incipient stage; and
(viii) If unable to extinguish fire in the areas exposed to the hot
work, activate the alarm.
(3) The employer must ensure that employees assigned to fire watch
are physically capable of performing these duties.
Sec. 1915.505 Fire response.
(a) Employer responsibilities. The employer must:
(1) Decide what type of response will be provided and who will
provide it; and
(2) Create, maintain, and update a written policy that:
(i) Describes the internal and outside fire response organizations
that the employer will use; and
(ii) Defines what evacuation procedures employees must follow, if
the employer chooses to require a total or partial evacuation of the
worksite at the time of a fire.
(b) Required written policy information. (1) Internal fire
response. If an internal fire response is to be used, the employer must
include the following information in the employer's written policy:
(i) The basic structure of the fire response organization;
(ii) The number of trained fire response employees;
(iii) The fire response functions that may need to be carried out;
(iv) The minimum number of fire response employees necessary, the
number and types of apparatuses, and a description of the fire
suppression operations established by written standard operating
procedures for each type of fire response at the employer's facility;
(v) The type, amount, and frequency of training that must be given
to fire response employees; and
(vi) The procedures for using protective clothing and equipment.
(2) Outside fire response. If an outside fire response organization
is used, the employer must include the following information in the
written policy:
(i) The types of fire suppression incidents to which the fire
response organization is expected to respond at the employer's facility
or worksite;
(ii) The liaisons between the employer and the outside fire
response organizations; and
(iii) A plan for fire response functions that:
(A) Addresses procedures for obtaining assistance from the outside
fire response organization;
(B) Familiarizes the outside fire response organization with the
layout of the employer's facility or worksite, including access routes
to controlled areas, and site-specific operations, occupancies, vessels
or vessel sections, and hazards; and,
(C) Sets forth how hose and coupling connection threads are to be
made compatible and includes where the adapter couplings are kept; or
(D) States that the employer will not allow the use of incompatible
hose connections.
(3) A combination of internal and outside fire response. If a
combination of internal and outside fire response is to be used, the
employer must include the following information, in addition to the
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, in the
written policy:
(i) The basic organizational structure of the combined fire
response;
(ii) The number of combined trained fire responders;
(iii) The fire response functions that may need to be carried out;
(iv) The minimum number of fire response employees necessary, the
number and types of apparatuses, 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
(v) The type, amount, and frequency of joint training with outside
fire response organizations if given to fire response employees.
(4) Employee evacuation. The employer must include the following
information in the employer's written policy:
(i) Emergency escape procedures;
(ii) Procedures to be followed by employees who may remain longer
at the worksite to perform critical shipyard employment operations
during the evacuation;
(iii) Procedures to account for all employees after emergency
evacuation is completed;
(iv) The preferred means of reporting fires and other emergencies;
and
(v) Names or job titles of the employees or departments to be
contacted for further information or explanation of duties.
(5) Rescue and emergency response. The employer must include the
following information in the employer's written policy:
(i) A description of the emergency rescue procedures; and
(ii) Names or job titles of the employees who are assigned to
perform them.
(c) Medical requirements for shipyard fire response employees. The
employer must ensure that:
(1) All fire response employees receive medical examinations to
assure that they are physically and medically fit for the duties they
are expected to perform;
(2) Fire response employees, who are required to wear respirators
in performing their duties, meet the medical requirements of Sec.
1915.154;
(3) Each fire response employee has an annual medical examination;
and
(4) The medical records of fire response employees are kept in
accordance with Sec. 1915.1020.
(d) Organization of internal fire response functions. The employer
must:
(1) Organize fire response functions to ensure enough resources to
conduct emergency operations safely;
(2) Establish lines of authority and assign responsibilities to
ensure that the components of the internal fire response are
accomplished;
(3) Set up an incident management system to coordinate and direct
fire response functions, including:
(i) Specific fire emergency responsibilities;
(ii) Accountability for all fire response employees participating
in an emergency operation; and
(iii) Resources offered by outside organizations; and
(4) Provide the information required in this paragraph (d) to the
outside fire response organization to be used.
(e) Personal protective clothing and equipment for fire response
employees. (1) General requirements. The employer must:
(i) Supply to all fire response employees, at no cost, the
appropriate personal protective clothing and equipment they may need to
perform expected duties; and
(ii) Ensure that fire response employees wear the appropriate
[[Page 55705]]
personal protective clothing and use the equipment, when necessary, to
protect them from hazardous exposures.
(2) Thermal stability and flame resistance. The employer must:
(i) Ensure that each fire response employee exposed to the hazards
of flame does not wear clothing that could increase the extent of
injury that could be sustained; and
(ii) Prohibit wearing clothing made from acetate, nylon, or
polyester, either alone or in blends, unless it can be shown that:
(A) The fabric will withstand the flammability hazard that may be
encountered; or
(B) The clothing will be worn in such a way to eliminate the
flammability hazard that may be encountered.
(3) Respiratory protection. The employer must:
(i) Provide self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) to all fire
response employees involved in an emergency operation in an atmosphere
that is immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH), potentially
IDLH, or unknown;
(ii) Provide SCBA to fire response employees performing emergency
operations during hazardous chemical emergencies that will expose them
to known hazardous chemicals in vapor form or to unknown chemicals;
(iii) Provide fire response employees who perform or support
emergency operations that will expose them to hazardous chemicals in
liquid form either:
(A) SCBA, or
(B) Respiratory protective devices certified by the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) under 42 CFR Part
84 as suitable for the specific chemical environment;
(iv) Ensure that additional outside air supplies used in
conjunction with SCBA result in positive pressure systems that are
certified by NIOSH under 42 CFR Part 84;
(v) Provide only SCBA that meet the requirements of NFPA 1981-1997
Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus for the
Fire Service (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1915.5); and
(vi) Ensure that the respiratory protection program and all
respiratory protection equipment comply with Sec. 1915.154.
(4) Interior structural firefighting operations. The employer must:
(i) Supply at no cost to all fire response employees exposed to the
hazards of shipyard fire response, a helmet, gloves, footwear, and
protective hoods, and either a protective coat and trousers or a
protective coverall; and
(ii) Ensure that this equipment meets the applicable
recommendations in NFPA 1971-2000 Standard on Protective Ensemble for
Structural Fire Fighting (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1915.5).
(5) Proximity firefighting operations. The employer must provide,
at no cost, to all fire response employees who are exposed to the
hazards of proximity firefighting, appropriate protective proximity
clothing meets the applicable recommendations in NFPA 1976-2000
Standard on Protective Ensemble for Proximity Fire Fighting
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1915.5).
(6) Personal Alert Safety System (PASS) devices. The employer must:
(i) Provide each fire response employee involved in firefighting
operations with a PASS device; and
(ii) Ensure that each PASS device meets the recommendations in NFPA
1982-1998 Standard on Personal Alert Safety Systems (PASS),
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1915.5).
(7) Life safety ropes, body harnesses, and hardware. The employer
must ensure that:
(i) All life safety ropes, body harnesses, and hardware used by
fire response employees for emergency operations meet the applicable
recommendations in NFPA 1983-2001, Standard on Fire Service Life Safety
Rope and System Components (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
1915.5);
(ii) Fire response employees use only Class I body harnesses to
attach to ladders and aerial devices; and
(iii) Fire response employees use only Class II and Class III body
harnesses for fall arrest and rappelling operations.
(f) Equipment maintenance. (1) Personal protective equipment. The
employer must inspect and maintain personal protective equipment used
to protect fire response employees to ensure that it provides the
intended protection.
(2) Fire response equipment. The employer must:
(i) Keep fire response equipment in a state of readiness;
(ii) Standardize all fire hose coupling and connection threads
throughout the facility and on vessels and vessel sections by providing
the same type of hose coupling and connection threads for hoses of the
same or similar diameter; and
(iii) Ensure that either all fire hoses and coupling connection
threads are the same within a facility or vessel or vessel section as
those used by the outside fire response organization, or supply
suitable adapter couplings if such an organization is expected to use
the fire response equipment within a facility or vessel or vessel
section.
Sec. 1915.506 Hazards of fixed extinguishing systems on board vessels
and vessel sections.
(a) Employer responsibilities. The employer must comply with the
provisions of this section whenever employees are exposed to fixed
extinguishing systems that could create a dangerous atmosphere when
activated in vessels and vessel sections, regardless of geographic
location.
(b) Requirements for automatic and manual systems. Before any work
is done in a space equipped with fixed extinguishing systems, the
employer must either:
(1) Physically isolate the systems or use other positive means to
prevent the systems' discharge; or
(2) Ensure employees are trained to recognize:
(i) Systems' discharge and evacuation alarms and the appropriate
escape routes; and
(ii) Hazards associated with the extinguishing systems and agents
including the dangers of disturbing system components and equipment
such as piping, cables, linkages, detection devices, activation
devices, and alarm devices.
(c) Sea and dock trials. During trials, the employer must ensure
that all systems shall remain operational.
(d) Doors and hatches. The employer must:
(1) Take protective measures to ensure that all doors, hatches,
scuttles, and other exit openings remain working and accessible for
escape in the event the systems are activated; and
(2) Ensure that all inward opening doors, hatches, scuttles, and
other potential barriers to safe exit are removed, locked open, braced,
or otherwise secured so that they remain open and accessible for escape
if systems' activation could result in a positive pressure in the
protected spaces sufficient to impede escape.
(e) Testing the system. (1) When testing a fixed extinguishing
system involves a total discharge of extinguishing medium into a space,
the employer must evacuate all employees from the space and assure that
no employees remain in the space during the discharge. The employer
must retest the atmosphere in accordance with Sec. 1915.12 to ensure
that the oxygen levels are safe for employees to enter.
(2) When testing a fixed extinguishing system does not involve a
total discharge of the systems extinguishing medium, the employer must
make sure that the system's extinguishing medium
[[Page 55706]]
is physically isolated and that all employees not directly involved in
the testing are evacuated from the protected space.
(f) Conducting system maintenance. Before conducting maintenance on
a fixed extinguishing system, the employer must ensure that the system
is physically isolated.
(g) Using fixed manual extinguishing systems for fire protection.
If fixed manual extinguishing systems are used to provide fire
protection for spaces in which the employees are working, the employer
must ensure that:
(1) Only authorized employees are allowed to activate the system;
(2) Authorized employees are trained to operate and activate the
systems; and
(3) All employees are evacuated from the protected spaces, and
accounted for, before the fixed manual extinguishing system is
activated.
Sec. 1915.507 Land-side fire protection systems.
(a) Employer responsibilities. The employer must ensure all fixed
and portable fire protection systems needed to meet an OSHA standard
for employee safety or employee protection from fire hazards in land-
side facilities, including, but not limited to, buildings, structures,
and equipment, meet the requirements of this section.
(b) Portable fire extinguishers and hose systems. (1) The employer
must select, install, inspect, maintain, and test all portable fire
extinguishers according to NFPA 10-1998 Standard for Portable Fire
Extinguishers (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1915.5).
(2) The employer is permitted to use Class II or Class III hose
systems, in accordance with NFPA 10-1998, as portable fire
extinguishers if the employer selects, installs, inspects, maintains,
and tests those systems according to the specific recommendations in
NFPA 14-2000 Standard for the Installation of Standpipe, Private
Hydrant, and Hose Systems (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
1915.5).
(c) General requirements for fixed extinguishing systems. The
employer must:
(1) Ensure that any fixed extinguishing system component or
extinguishing agent is approved by an OSHA Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratory, meeting the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7, for use
on the specific hazards the employer expects it to control or
extinguish;
(2) Notify employees and take the necessary precautions to ensure
employees are safe from fire if for any reason a fire extinguishing
system stops working, until the system is working again;
(3) Ensure all repairs to fire extinguishing systems and equipment
are done by a qualified technician or mechanic;
(4) Provide and ensure employees use proper personal protective
equipment when entering discharge areas in which the atmosphere remains
hazardous to employee safety or health, or provide safeguards to
prevent employees from entering those areas. See Sec. 1915.12 for
additional requirements applicable to safe entry into spaces containing
dangerous atmospheres;
(5) Post hazard warning or caution signs at both the entrance to
and inside of areas protected by fixed extinguishing systems that use
extinguishing agents in concentrations known to be hazardous to
employee safety or health; and
(6) Select, install, inspect, maintain, and test all automatic fire
detection systems and emergency alarms according to NFPA 72-1999
National Fire Alarm Code (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1915.5).
(d) Fixed extinguishing systems. The employer must select, install,
maintain, inspect, and test all fixed systems required by OSHA as
follows:
(1) Standpipe and hose systems according to NFPA 14-2000 Standard
for the Installation of Standpipe, Private Hydrant, and Hose Systems
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1915.5);
(2) Automatic sprinkler systems according to NFPA 25-2002 Standard
for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-based Fire
Protection Systems, (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1915.5), and
either NFPA 13-1999 Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1915.5) or NFPA 750-2000 Standard
on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 1915.5);
(3) Fixed extinguishing systems that use water or foam as the
extinguishing agent according to NFPA 15-2001 Standard for Water Spray
Fixed Systems for Fire Protection (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
1915.5); NFPA 11-1998 Standard for Low-Expansion Foam (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 1915.5); and NFPA 11A-1999 Standard for Medium-
and High-Expansion Foam Systems (incorporated by reference, see
1915.5);
(4) Fixed extinguishing systems using dry chemical as the
extinguishing agent according to NFPA 17-2002 Standard for Dry Chemical
Extinguishing Systems (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1915.5);
and
(5) Fixed extinguishing systems using gas as the extinguishing
agent according to NFPA 12-2000 Standard on Carbon Dioxide
Extinguishing Systems (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1915.5);
NFPA 12A-1997 Standard on Halon 1301 Fire Extinguishing Systems
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1915.5); and NFPA 2001-2000
Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 1915.5).
Sec. 1915.508 Training.
(a) The employer must train employees in the applicable
requirements of this section:
(1) Within 90 days of December 14, 2004, for employees currently
working;
(2) Upon initial assignment for new employees; and
(3) When necessary to maintain proficiency for employees previously
trained.
(b) Employee training. The employer must ensure that all employees
are trained on:
(1) The emergency alarm signals, including system discharge alarms
and employee evacuation alarms; and
(2) The primary and secondary evacuation routes that employees must
use in the event of a fire in the workplace. While all vessels and
vessel sections must have a primary evacuation route, a secondary
evacuation route is not required when impracticable.
(c) Additional training requirements for employees expected to
fight incipient stage fires. The employer must ensure that employees
expected to fight incipient stage fires are trained on the following:
(1) The general principles of using fire extinguishers or hose
lines, the hazards involved with incipient firefighting, and the
procedures used to reduce these hazards;
(2) The hazards associated with fixed and portable fire protection
systems that employees may use or to which they may be exposed during
discharge of those systems; and
(3) The activation and operation of fixed and portable fire
protection systems that the employer expects employees to use in the
workplace.
(d) Additional training requirements for shipyard employees
designated for fire response. The employer must:
(1) Have a written training policy stating that fire response
employees must be trained and capable of carrying out their duties and
responsibilities at all times;
(2) Keep written standard operating procedures that address
anticipated
[[Page 55707]]
emergency operations and update these procedures as necessary;
(3) Review fire response employee training programs and hands-on
sessions before they are used in fire response training to make sure
that fire response employees are protected from hazards associated with
fire response training;
(4) Provide training for fire response employees that ensures they
are capable of carrying out their duties and responsibilities under the
employer's standard operating procedures;
(5) Train new fire response employees before they engage in
emergency operations;
(6) At least quarterly, provide training on the written operating
procedures to fire response employees who are expected to fight fires;
(7) Use qualified instructors to conduct the training;
(8) Conduct any training that involves live fire response exercises
in accordance with NFPA 1403-2002 Standard on Live Fire Training
Evolutions (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1915.5);
(9) Conduct semi-annual drills according to the employer's written
procedures for fire response employees that cover site-specific
operations, occupancies, buildings, vessels and vessel sections, and
fire-related hazards; and
(10) Prohibit the use of smoke generating devices that create a
dangerous atmosphere in training exercises.
(e) Additional training requirements for fire watch duty. (1) The
employer must ensure that each fire watch is trained by an instructor
with adequate fire watch knowledge and experience to cover the items as
follows:
(i) Before being assigned to fire watch duty;
(ii) Whenever there is a change in operations that presents a new
or different hazard;
(iii) Whenever the employer has reason to believe that the fire
watch's knowledge, skills, or understanding of the training previously
provided is inadequate; and
(iv) Annually.
(2) The employer must ensure that each employee who stands fire
watch duty is trained in:
(i) The basics of fire behavior, the different classes of fire and
of extinguishing agents, the stages of fire, and methods for
extinguishing fires;
(ii) Extinguishing live fire scenarios whenever allowed by local
and federal law;
(iii) The recognition of the adverse health effects that may be
caused by exposure to fire;
(iv) The physical characteristics of the hot work area;
(v) The hazards associated with fire watch duties;
(vi) The personal protective equipment (PPE) needed to perform fire
watch duties safely;
(vii) The use of PPE;
(viii) The selection and use of any fire extinguishers and fire
hoses likely to be used by a fire watch in the work area;
(ix) The location and use of barriers;
(x) The means of communication designated by the employer for fire
watches;
(xi) When and how to start fire alarm procedures; and
(xii) The employer's evacuation plan.
(3) The employer must ensure that each fire watch is trained to
alert others to exit the space whenever:
(i) The fire watch perceives an unsafe condition;
(ii) The fire watch perceives that a worker performing hot work is
in danger;
(iii) The employer or a representative of the employer orders an
evacuation; or
(iv) An evacuation signal, such as an alarm, is activated.
(f) Records. The employer must keep records that demonstrate that
employees have been trained as required by paragraphs (a) through (e)
of this section.
(1) The employer must ensure that the records include the
employee's name; the trainer's name; the type of training; and the
date(s) on which the training took place.
(2) The employer must keep each training record for one year from
the time it was made or until it is replaced with a new training
record, whichever is shorter, and make it available for inspection and
copying by OSHA on request.
Sec. 1915.509 Definitions applicable to this subpart.
Alarm--a signal or message from a person or device that indicates
that there is a fire, medical emergency, or other situation that
requires emergency response or evacuation. At some shipyards, this may
be called an ``incident'' or a ``call for service.''
Alarm system--a system that warns employees at the worksite of
danger.
Body harness--a system of straps that may be secured about the
employee in a manner that will distribute the fall arrest forces over
at least the thighs, shoulders, chest, and pelvis, with means for
attaching it to other components of a personal fall arrest system.
Class II standpipe system--a 1\1/2\ inch (3.8 cm) hose system which
provides a means for the control or extinguishment of incipient stage
fires.
Contract employer--an employer, such as a painter, joiner,
carpenter, or scaffolding sub-contractor, who performs work under
contract to the host employer or to another employer under contract to
the host employer at the host employer's worksite. This excludes
employers who provide incidental services that do not influence
shipyard employment (such as mail delivery or office supply services).
Dangerous atmosphere--an atmosphere that may expose employees to
the risk of death, incapacitation, injury, acute illness, or impairment
of ability to self-rescue (i.e., escape unaided from a confined or
enclosed space).
Designated area--an area established for hot work after an
inspection that is free of fire hazards.
Drop Test--a method utilizing gauges to ensure the integrity of an
oxygen fuel gas burning system. The method requires that the burning
torch is installed to one end of the oxygen and fuel gas lines and then
the gauges are attached to the other end of the hoses. The manifold or
cylinder supply valve is opened and the system is pressurized. The
manifold or cylinder supply valve is then closed and the gauges are
watched for at least sixty (60) seconds. Any drop in pressure indicates
a leak.
Emergency operations--activities performed by fire response
organizations that are related to: rescue, fire suppression, emergency
medical care, and special operations or activities that include
responding to the scene of an incident and all activities performed at
that scene.
Fire hazard--a condition or material that may start or contribute
to the spread of fire.
Fire protection--methods of providing fire prevention, response,
detection, control, extinguishment, and engineering.
Fire response--the activity taken by the employer at the time of an
emergency incident involving a fire at the worksite, including fire
suppression activities carried out by internal or external resources or
a combination of both, or total or partial employee evacuation of the
area exposed to the fire.
Fire response employee--a shipyard employee who carries out the
duties and responsibilities of shipyard firefighting in accordance with
the fire safety plan.
Fire response organization--an organized group knowledgeable,
trained, and skilled in shipyard firefighting operations that responds
to shipyard fire emergencies, including: fire brigades, shipyard fire
departments,
[[Page 55708]]
private or contractual fire departments, and municipal fire
departments.
Fire suppression--the activities involved in controlling and
extinguishing fires.
Fire watch--the activity of observing and responding to the fire
hazards associated with hot work in shipyard employment and the
employees designated to do so.
Fixed extinguishing system--a permanently installed fire protection
system that either extinguishes or controls fire occurring in the space
it protects.
Flammable liquid--any liquid having a flashpoint below 100 [deg]F
(37.8 [deg]C), except any mixture having components with flashpoints of
100 [deg]F (37.8 [deg]C) or higher, the total of which make up 99
percent or more of the total volume of the mixture.
Hazardous substance--a substance likely to cause injury by reason
of being explosive, flammable, poisonous, corrosive, oxidizing, an
irritant, or otherwise harmful.
Hose systems--fire protection systems consisting of a water supply,
approved fire hose, and a means to control the flow of water at the
output end of the hose.
Host employer--an employer who is in charge of coordinating work or
who hires other employers to perform work at a multi-employer
workplace.
Incident management system--a system that defines the roles and
responsibilities to be assumed by personnel and the operating
procedures to be used in the management and direction of emergency
operations; the system is also referred to as an ``incident command
system'' (ICS).
Incipient stage fire--a fire, in the initial or beginning stage,
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.
Inerting--the displacement of the atmosphere in a permit space by
noncombustible gas (such as nitrogen) to such an extent that the
resulting atmosphere is noncombustible. This procedure produces an IDLH
oxygen-deficient atmosphere.
Interior structural firefighting operations--the physical activity
of fire response, rescue, or both involving a fire beyond the incipient
stage inside of buildings, enclosed structures, vessels, and vessel
sections.
Multi-employer workplace--a workplace where there is a host
employer and at least one contract employer.
Personal Alert Safety System (PASS)--a device that sounds a loud
signal if the wearer becomes immobilized or is motionless for 30
seconds or more.
Physical isolation--the elimination of a fire hazard by removing
the hazard from the work area (at least 35 feet for combustibles), by
covering or shielding the hazard with a fire-resistant material, or
physically preventing the hazard from entering the work area.
Physically isolated--positive isolation of the supply from the
distribution piping of a fixed extinguishing system. Examples of ways
to physically isolate include: removing a spool piece and installing a
blank flange; providing a double block and bleed valve system; or
completely disconnecting valves and piping from all cylinders or other
pressure vessels containing extinguishing agents.
Protected space--any space into which a fixed extinguishing system
can discharge.
Proximity firefighting--specialized fire-fighting operations that
require specialized thermal protection and may include the activities
of rescue, fire suppression, and property conservation at incidents
involving fires producing very high levels of conductive, convective,
and radiant heat such as aircraft fires, bulk flammable gas fires, and
bulk flammable liquid fires. Proximity firefighting operations usually
are exterior operations but may be combined with structural
firefighting operations. Proximity firefighting is not entry
firefighting.
Qualified instructor--a person with specific knowledge, training,
and experience in fire response or fire watch activities to cover the
material found in Sec. 1915.508(b) or (c).
Rescue--locating endangered persons at an emergency incident,
removing those persons from danger, treating the injured, and
transporting the injured to an appropriate health care facility.
Shipyard firefighting--the activity of rescue, fire suppression,
and property conservation involving buildings, enclosed structures,
vehicles, vessels, aircraft, or similar properties involved in a fire
or emergency situation.
Small hose system--a system of hoses ranging in diameter from \5/
8\'' (1.6 cm) up to 1\1/2\'' (3.8 cm) which is for the use of employees
and which provides a means for the control and extinguishment of
incipient stage fires.
Standpipe--a fixed fire protection system consisting of piping and
hose connections used to supply water to approved hose lines or
sprinkler systems. The hose may or may not be connected to the system.
Appendix A to Subpart P--Model Fire Safety Plan (Non-Mandatory)
Model Fire Safety Plan
Note: This appendix is non-mandatory and provides guidance to
assist employers in establishing a Fire Safety Plan as required in
Sec. 1915.502.
Table of Contents
I. Purpose.
II. Work site fire hazards and how to properly control them.
III. Alarm systems and how to report fires.
IV. How to evacuate in different emergency situations.
V. Employee awareness.
I. Purpose
The purpose of this fire safety plan is to inform our employees
of how we will control and reduce the possibility of fire in the
workplace and to specify what equipment employees may use in case of
fire.
II. Work Site Fire Hazards and How To Properly Control Them
A. Measures to contain fires.
B. Teaching selected employees how to use fire protection
equipment.
C. What to do if you discover a fire.
D. Potential ignition sources for fires and how to control them.
E. Types of fire protection equipment and systems that can
control a fire.
F. The level of firefighting capability present in the facility,
vessel, or vessel section.
G. Description of the personnel responsible for maintaining
equipment, alarms, and systems that are installed to prevent or
control fire ignition sources, and to control fuel source hazards.
III. Alarm Systems and How To Report Fires
A. A demonstration of alarm procedures, if more than one type
exists.
B. The work site emergency alarm system.
C. Procedures for reporting fires.
IV. How To Evacuate in Different Emergency Situations
A. Emergency escape procedures and route assignments.
B. Procedures to account for all employees after completing an
emergency evacuation.
C. What type of evacuation is needed and what the employee's
role is in carrying out the plan.
D. Helping physically impaired employees.
V. Employee Awareness
Names, job titles, or departments of individuals who can be
contacted for further information about this plan.
[FR Doc. 04-20608 Filed 9-14-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P