# Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A04-20608

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** September 15, 2004
- **Citation:** 69 FR 55668

## Text

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

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 § 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

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

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 § 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 § 1915.505, Fire Response, and § 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 Extinguishers
NFPA 10-1998 Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers
76250 (2 locations).

NFPA 11-2000 Standard for Low-Expansion Foam
NFPA 11-1998 Standard for Low-Expansion Foam
76236, 76250.

NFPA 15-2002 Standard for Water Spray Fixed Systems for Fire Protection (Ex. 20-19)
NFPA 15-2001 Standard for Water Spray Fixed Systems for Fire Protection (Ex. 19-19)
76236.

NFPA 17-1998 Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems (Ex. 19-20)
NFPA 17-2002 Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems (Ex. 19-20)
76237, 76250.

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 § 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 § 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 § 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

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 § 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 § 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 § 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

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 § 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 § 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, § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 §§ 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 § 1910.38 and § 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 §§ 1910.38 and .39 are similar to the fire safety plans required by § 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 § 1915.502 fire safety plan provisions do not adequately replace the § 1910.38 requirements and shipyard employers will still be required to comply with § 1910.38. For § 1910.39 Fire protection

plans, OSHA has determined that paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) are covered by § 1915.502, and shipyard employers are no longer required to comply with these provisions of § 1910.39. However, paragraph § 1910.39(c) contains provisions requiring employers to identify and control certain fire hazards. These provisions are not adequately addressed by § 1915.502, so OSHA has determined that shipyard employers will continue to be required to comply with the § 1910.39(c) provisions.

The Agency understands that shipyard employers who are currently complying with §§ 1910.38 and 1910.39 will now also be required to comply with the additional requirements of § 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 §§ 1910.38, 1910.39, and 1915.502.

Plan Elements

In § 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 § 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 § 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 § 1910.1200(f)(8) (“as long as no barriers to immediate employee access exist”) and § 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 § 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 § 1915.502(d)(2) is clear and this provision has been included in the final standard.

In § 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

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 § 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 § 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 § 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 §§ 1915.52 Fire Prevention, § 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 §§ 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

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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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.

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 § 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 § 1915.181, Subpart L, for unexpected energizing and energy release. In addition, the reader should refer to §§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 1910.252 and § 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 § 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 § 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

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 § 1915.503(b)(iii)(A) and (B) to § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 1915.152(a).

Posting Fire Watches

Paragraph (b) of § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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

Standard for Fire Prevention During Welding, Cutting, and Other Hot Work, (Ex. 19-3) and § 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 § 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 § 1915.504 includes the 35-foot requirements (minimum distance of combustible materials from hot work) from the § 1910.252(a)(2)(vii) Subpart Q, Welding, Cutting and Brazing and NFPA 51B-1999 Standard for Fire 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 § 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 § 1915.504 only applies in limited circumstances, OSHA has reworded the § 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 § 1915.504 addresses the potential hazards of adjacent spaces. This paragraph is adapted from existing § 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

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 § 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 § 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 § 1915.504 outlines the assignment of fire watch duty. Proposed paragraph (c)(1) of § 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 § 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 § 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

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 § 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 § 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 § 1915.504(c)(1) to prohibit the assignment of other duties “while hot work is in progress,” and has added a requirement in § 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 § 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 § 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 § 1915.504(c) have been renumbered.

Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of § 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 § 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 § 1915.508.) Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(v) of § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 1915.508(c)(2)(xi) and the employer's fire safety plan, § 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 § 1915.504 requires the employer to ensure that employees assigned to fire watch are physically capable of performing these duties.

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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 1915.505.

Paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of § 1915.505 requires the employer to create, maintain, and update a written policy that defines what evacuation procedures

employees must follow if the employer chooses to require a total or partial evacuation of the worksite at the time of a fire. 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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

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 § 1915.505(b), and is carrying them forward in the final standard.

Medical Requirements for Shipyard Fire Response Employees

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A04-20608. Public record. Not legal advice.