 

 

 

 

 

NWX-DOL OSHA 

 

Moderator: Gretta Jameson

July 12, 2016

3:40pm CT

 

 

 

Gretta Jameson:	Hello, operator?

Coordinator:	Hi, yes, ma’am, I’m here. 

Gretta Jameson:	During the breaks, we don’t have to turn the phone or
anything off, we don’t have to redial back in, you’ll just come back
on? 

Coordinator:	Yes, I’ll just – I’ll be here with you. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	That might be the way to go, that way people on the sides can look
at this…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	There was some guy you know, protesting the government, how they
were encroaching on his rights and…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Yes, and they also wanted to have…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	So that’s what I’m (unintelligible) sports cars, so…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I’m not a great player, but I can at least turn up the amp, you
know, put the reverb on…

((Crosstalk))

Woman:	Hi, boys. 

Man:	Hi, how are you? 

((Crosstalk))

(Lamont Burton):	Yes, good morning, everyone. I guess we can get
started. We’re running just a little bit behind schedule, but I’m
told we have a quorum, so I guess it’s time to get to work. Again,
good morning. I’d like to start off – I’m (Lamont Burton). I’m
the coach here. I would expect that (Rick Ingram) will be here shortly,
but to start things off I’d like to ask the committee members or
subcommittee members to introduce yourselves, starting with (Ken). 

(Ken Fonteneau):	Good morning, (Ken Fonteneau), with the national
volunteer fire council. 

(Lisa Delaney):	Hi, my name is (Lisa Delaney) and I’m with NIOSH. 

Kathy Robinson:	(Kathy Robinson) with the national association of safety
MS officials. 

(Kurt Foyet):	Morning, (Kurt Foyet), FDA. 

(Spencer Schwagler):	Morning, (Spencer Schwagler), with the national
building traders, CPWR. 

(Matt Tipton):	Good morning, I’m (Matt Tipton) with the international
association of fire chiefs. 

(Patrick Morrison):	Hi, good morning, (Patrick Morrison), international
association of firefighters. 

Bill Warren:	Good morning, Bill Warren, (unintelligible) special safety
and health. 

(Ron Sarniken):	And good morning, (Ron Sarniken), national fallen
firefighters organization. 

(Mark Hageman):	(Mark Hageman), OSHA director over standards and
guidance. 

(Sarah Shordon):	(Sarah Shordon), (unintelligible) council. 

(Lamont Burton):	Okay, and at this time, (Sarah), did you give us your
instructions? 

(Sarah Shordon):	Oh, well, I’m – you want me to do the thank you
part during that part? 

(Lamont Burton):	Oh, I’ll do that. Oh, you’ll do that, oh, okay. 

(Sarah Shordon):	You have before you a packet of materials, and that
includes the agenda. On the back of the agenda you’ll notice it’s
– that (Mr. Hamilton) has already put down the target number for all
the exhibits that are made part of the record of this meeting will be
going into the record, and you can access them at w  HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  ww.regulations.gov , and to that end I
would like to enter into the records exhibit one, the agenda from the
July 12th, the 14 day emergency response and preparedness subcommittee
meeting. 

(Lamont Burton):	Okay, thank you, and (Mark). 

(Mark Hageman):	Okay, again, my name is (Mark Hageman), filling in for
(Andy Levinson) as the alternate designated federal official. (Andy)’s
running a bit late, he should be here around 10 o’clock or so. I’d
like to welcome everybody to our fifth meeting of the subcommittee, and
thank everyone for taking the time out of their busy schedules to spend
three days with us to do a lot of good work here. 

	Just a few things before we get started, some emergency things and
things of that nature. If there is an emergency, follow the crowd down
the stairs. Follow Bill Hamilton is probably the best thing to do, down
the stairs and out the doors. If there’s a shelter in place event, we
have a cabinet full of emergency shelter room supplies, so a shelter in
place, we hang out right here in the room. 

	Bathrooms as most of you probably know, out the door, you can either go
to the right or to the left. Elevators are right in front of us,
there’s a snack bar on the fourth floor, for coffee and snacks and
drinks and things, and the cafeteria is on the sixth floor. I think
that’s all that I needed to say, so I will now turn it back over to
(Lamont). 

(Lamont Burton):	Okay, thank you, (Mark). Since our last meeting
there’s been quite a bit of work done. At this time I’d ask Bill
Hamilton to kind of walk us through the changes to the draft regulatory
language. Bill? 

Bill Hamilton:	Thank you. I apologize for the quality of the projection,
I’m trying to think about how we can – what we can do to improve
that. 

Woman:	Can we turn off the lights maybe? 

(Lamont Burton):	Hey, Bill, can I just make one more comment, sorry. We
are being transcribed, this meeting by telephone, so if everyone could
make sure that they state their name before they make a statement or
comment just so the transcriber can get the name, that would be great,
thank you. 

Man:	Do you want to do that – hey, Bill. 

Bill Hamilton:	Okay, before we go through the changes to the regulatory
– draft regulatory text, I’d like to take this opportunity to give
the audience an opportunity to introduce yourselves, since we have a
fairly small audience. 

Woman:	(Unintelligible). 

Man:	(Unintelligible). 

Man:	(Unintelligible). 

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Woman:	(Unintelligible). 

Woman:	(Unintelligible). 

Woman:	(Unintelligible). 

Man:	(Unintelligible). 

(Lamont Burton):	Okay, thank you very much. Bill, the floor is yours. 

Bill Hamilton:	Thank you. With the lights off, is that maybe more
difficult for folks at the table to be able to read your papers, take
notes, and stay awake? Okay, one thing that’s different about this
version of the reg text in your block, I’m going to go through the
paper I think because it’ll be easier than trying to scroll through
that screen for right now, the projection. 

	So in the reg text, in the box, you know, we said with a little
instruction about how we got this thing all together. What I added in
the bottom, it says that in this version of this revision, I – we did
something different this time actually incorporated the comments, the
work of the subgroups that the subgroups did in between the last meeting
and this meeting is actually rolled into this so that it will appear on
your screen as all added together. 

	In the past I’ve put comments and made changes based on what was done
in the – at the subcommittee meeting, but then when the subgroups got
together that all was on separate paper, we talked about it, and then I
incorporated it after the full meeting. So that’s a little bit
different from this one. It does include the information that the
subgroups provided over the course of the last few weeks. 

	So that’s that. So right there on page one in the first sentence of
the – of number one, A1I, somehow or another I kept dropping that not,
because what, I – if you’ve been here before, a previous version in
the track changes, but somehow or another I dropped it, so it’s back
in, because that’s not limited to. All right, page 3 has in addition
to the definitions for community vulnerability and risk assessment, and
that was a recommendation from the subgroup that worked on it. 

	And so let’s see, and then we have on the following page, page 4, in
the previous meeting we all – we talked about data community
vulnerability assessments and facilities, and throughout the document we
talked about the – to them and so we just captured a new definition
that essentially matches. They’re not exactly the same, but I think
the community one says organizations and facilities, I dropped the term
organizations out of it. 

	On page 5, the definition for Good Samaritan that was provided by the
– one of the subgroups, on page 6, we had been using the term NGO or
non-government organization, so I pulled up the definition for that for
us to consider. We asked – in the last meeting you asked for a
definition for pre-incident plan, so we did that. 

	On the top of page 7, responder was an employee who is or will be – I
added the or will be, so that we can include trainees, so they aren’t
already a responder, they’re not already assigned to perform duties,
but they will be as a trainee, okay? Self-deployed worker, the
definition was changed to spontaneous unaffiliated volunteer, and we
expanded the definition a little bit further down the page. 

	In the skilled support worker definition, and got away from just the
operation of certain equipment, and we got into the certain tasks and
disciplines that support an ESO, that was the recommendation from at the
last meeting, and also took out the fire inspectors, investigators, and
those folks because those are typically – they’re not skilled –
they provide skilled support, but they are actually typically employees
of the emergency services organizations and they aren’t an employee of
a skilled support employer. So we took them out of that definition. Page
8, as the NGO for non-government organization, let’s see. Page…

(Lamont Burton):	Excuse me, Bill? 

Bill Hamilton:	Yes, sir. 

(Lamont Burton):	Hey, on your acronyms, I don’t see SUV. Should that
– yes. 

Bill Hamilton:	Oh, SUV? Well, yes, we can add that in there. Sure. All
right, we’ll do that. SUV. I’m sure there’s more coming along. We
also don’t have – I know SCDA is not in there and a few others, we
should probably put those in too. Good catch. Okay, on page 9, we do –
I think these were – this was page 9, under establishing emergency
service capabilities, right, so here’s our community or facility, we
added that in. 

	And the rest of this I think were changes based on the meeting –
based on the discussions in the meeting last week, the last – two
months ago, rather. Sorry. Same thing. And then we also getting into
this is more the work of the subgroup, right, (Victor), I’m sorry.
This is all – the rest of the changes to the – establishing
emergency services capabilities was work provided by the subgroup that
met on that. 

	Until we get to number 4, we had talked before about having you know,
the tiers of responders, and this is still kind of a placeholder because
we’re – as you’ll see in this, one of the additional pieces of
information in your packet is a spreadsheet of – with a great variety
of tiers that the subgroup – one of the subgroups worked on. We
don’t have it in regulatory type language yet. This is kind of a small
synopsis of that. 

	But that’s something that the group still needs to kind of come to a
resolution on some regulatory language for that. Let’s see. Yes, page
12, on page 12, so we did have a couple of footnotes for the medical
requirements, and I guess I moved those to the rest, the – one of the
appendixes, the appendix that’s going to have all the reference
sections. It’s – that was there for our information and use along
the way as we developed this. 

	And we’ll keep it as a reference, making a note in here that the
requirements for medical requirements will differ based on the tiers,
responders duty task and responsibilities in accordance with E4, and
that’s where we’re looking for, we still have to go back and
actually write something a little bit more regulatory in there. 

	On page 16, there was a note to Bill that I needed to check the
confined space span for language. I did, they don’t have anything for
a – don’t have anything for the awareness level per se, and I forgot
to take out that note, so that was a note for me that needed to
disappear. They – because of the confined space standard entry, it’s
what you need to do in order to enter, and what we’re looking for is
something to – for them to become aware of not entering and for the
reason to not go in. 

	So there’s – I’m not aware of anything particular yet. I
apologize I neglected to look and see what NSPA had in their standards.
Making notes, here. Check NSPA, 1670, okay, thank you. One of those
things I had in the back of my mind to do. Okay, on 16 I guess we
probably need to – I still have the notes for as far as driver
apparatus, apparatus driver, maybe needed to either come up with some
other standards, you know, identifying the other standards that we might
be able to reflect to, or see if there might be some other requirements,
because it’s not just fire apparatus, heavy apparatus that they would
be driving. 

Woman:	Bill? 

Bill Hamilton:	Yes, ma’am. 

Kathy Robinson:	I know when you had did some work a couple years ago
establishing some job tasks and so forth, they actually had some
language around ambulances and heavy duty ambulances. One you could see
that of course the vehicle weighed 25,000 pounds, so I might be able to
find some language to support that from those documents. 

Bill Hamilton:	Okay, sounds good, thanks, Kathy. 

(Lamont Burton):	Hi, and Bill, this is (Lamont Burton). For – there
could be instances where workers are being transported to and from the
scene of an incident, and there are some regulations that would address
those types of transportation of passengers that we can help you out. 

Bill Hamilton:	You’re referring to buses and the bus drivers? 

(Lamont Burton):	Buses and vans, yes. 

Bill Hamilton:	Yes, okay, thank you. All right, so let’s see. Okay, so
I’m sorry, jumping back one page to page 15, in the previously we had
broken out the responder training from the previous session. We’d
pulled that up, separated (unintelligible) and I just put those couple
ampersands in there at the last meeting for you both to decide that –
or confirm that that’s what you wanted to do. 

	You agreed with it, and so from H forward all the lettering changes, so
everything where we had letters, the first letters of all the – from
this point forward changed in all of the sections. And hopefully where
we’ve crossed referenced stuff, I caught it. All right, so moving on,
page 18 and 19, there have been to inspect, maintain, and test
equipment. 

	It had been (unintelligible) sentence structure and instead we pulled
it out to be bullets. I kept the PP hazard assessment in 3, page 20,
added the NP207 for the public safety vests, further down page 20,
here’s the better term to recognize industry best practices, makes
more sense that way. 21, so 21, top of page 21, roman nine, that pulls
over from the bottom of page 22 where we had the ensure contaminated PP
is not stored in the passenger compartment of vehicles, and we talked a
bit about how we could do that. 

	And so this is what I ended up putting in there, and you recommended
moving it to the PPE section, so here it is, to the extent feasible
ensure responders are not exposed to contaminated PPE in the passenger
compartment of vehicles. So – and so, yes, and after – my
expectation is after we run through all of this, then we’ll at some
point go back from you know, start to finish because I know there’s
probably plenty of questions and things you guys would like to reword
right now. I know I would. 

	But the regulation is to run it through this and then we can start that
other train rolling. Okay, so in – on page 21, in J, inspect,
maintain, repair, or remove from service, this made a lot of sense. We
didn’t have to repair it if it’s beyond serviceable, and it needs to
be taken out of service, which also means it needs to be taken out of
service if it’s not safe to use. 

	And then I put – added the note about (unintelligible) double-eyed
was the seatbelt requirement, and we know that – we talked about this,
we know that there are some vehicles that are designed, built, and
intended for use without seatbelts. And so I provided some examples for
that in J1I, and so in – as long as we’re looking at that, you might
as well flip over because this is the – I’m sorry, J1II, this is to
ensure the routing position is equipped with a seat and operating
seatbelt. 

	On the next page is where they have to ensure that each person riding
on the vehicle wears the seatbelt, okay? One’s making sure they’re
equipped with it, one’s making sure they wear it, and I just pulled in
as a note for comments something from our maritime standard, because we
– some things, some of these other things, some ATVs and those type
whatever, or some buses, may have – may be equipped with seatbelts. 

	And if they are, then they should be wearing them, but not just a
blanket, well, you said we didn’t have to wear it. But so this is –
so I just kind of pulled that over at the last minute to say you know,
they did say if it’s – not everything was built with one, but if it
was built with one then you need to wear it, so just an idea. We can try
and work on that. 

	Back to page 21, service tests for fire pumps, and the question was how
big a pump and I went back to look, and they get down to fairly small
pumps, and really the intent was for the pumps that are vehicle mounted
and not just a portable pump, in my mind, I mean, it’s still probably
one of the portable pumps to make sure it worked right, but you know,
the intent was for the vehicle mounted fire pump to be tested as
directed by the manufacturer. 

	So instead of putting in a size on the pump, because like I said, it
did get down to fairly small GPMs in the standards, I just went with the
vehicle mounted. We had a discussion about whether or not somebody’s
driving or operating vehicles and you know, sometimes they’re driving
and sometimes they’re operating, so I tried to put in the driving when
something was you know, more specific to driving, but also included
operating. 

	This – we had a suggestion for an SOP for backing, and I included
those bullets. And then on page 22, two thirds of the way down,
establish – in V, establish in writing and implement procedure, I
included the parades because they specifically mention parades, and for
vehicles without seatbelts and then just to note back to those two
sections that highlighted or that I included that have the note with
design built and intended for use without seatbelts. 

	Let’s see, on 20 – page 23, we wanted to tie back – we were tying
back the pre-incident planning to the establishing services, see if
that’s (unintelligible), so let’s see, that’s in there somewhere.
All right, so back on – so I don’t have the cross reference to the
paragraph section in there, but on page 10, near the upper half, VII,
facilities requiring a pre-incident plan as outlined in section J will
be included in the ESO’s risk and vulnerability assessment. 

	And then here under – here, where the heck is it? Oh, here under J1,
based on it has – we included this based on the community or facility
vulnerability assessment, right? So there’s the kind of the tie back
and forth between those two. Just let’s see, we actually had not
initially told them to develop this – the pre-incident plan, we had to
make sure the person doing it was capable. We didn’t tell them they
had to do it. 

	Changed our employee document because the facility may have more than
just employees and the example, you know, such as a hotel or hospital
has other folks in it too. We wanted to identify places and pre-incident
planning things that may not be a physical structure to have a preplan
for, and one of the examples were things like rails, we have a railroad
tracks passing through, you know, that low flying planes, what have you.


	So this is kind of my attempt at a little bit of wording you know, to
the extent feasible to identify pre-incident plans for facilities,
locations, and go through significant incidents could occur and action
to be taken if the scope of the incident is beyond the capabilities of
the prevention service organization. It obviously needs – it needs
some help, but it’s in there as a something to think about. 

	We took out the next – the bottom of page 23 and top of page 24, we
took those out because they – we reasoned they were covered in the
other parts of – the couple lines above there. Also in pre-incident
planning on page 24 in the comment balloon, we made a question about
whether there was a similar document – okay, I’m sorry, 16, so
it’s referring, we talked about 1620, for standards – standard for
pre-incident planning, and the question was is there something for wild
land and wilderness interface.

	And I looked into it, and there – I could not find anything that was
specific to it other than on page 1620, does include addressing wild
lands, wilderness interface, and otherwise it’s part of the overall
fire management plan from the folks that do that. It’s not a specific
thing for one particular facility or one particular area. It’s just an
overall fire management plan. 

	Moving down into L, emergency incident standard operating procedures,
the flexible and expandable in order to be applicable to unforeseen
events, that had been further down. Oh, wait, (unintelligible) – oh
yes, it had been down, further down in the paragraph and we wanted to
move it up, so we did. And let’s see, so let’s see, is that going to
be out here – oh, and yes, so the others just got – it looks like
it’s just a little bit of cleaning up. 

	And then four specifies evacuation procedures for when an incident may
become to have these four responders, operations and it might – my
thought on that is an impending explosion. That’s not just a get out
of the building, that’s a drop and run and run far. For that – and
then moving down, it’s the next one, five, establish and improvise
procedure for emergency evacuation of responders from dangerous
situations, such as during evacuation in structure fire, when they need
to be evacuated and pull out of the building. 

	But once they’re outside they’re okay, they don’t just – they
don’t have to keep running, and then you asked for – also asked for
procedures – stand operating procedures for band-aid and rapid
intervention. And I finally got smart – well, sort of – and actually
put a note in the document where we ended. I hadn’t done that before,
and then I kept losing track. 

	So with that, when we got to incident management is where we stopped
after the last meeting, so that then takes us – jump all the way back
to page 31, and this is the work of the subgroup that – the scope
support subgroup and so this – so we’re actually – so we can –
we’ll wait for them to talk about a lot of that. So yes, I think
we’ll wait. 

	So this is – all this is what got pulled in from what the subgroups
– the scope support subgroups worked on, and it’s a – if you will
kind of a compilation of their work, and in your packet there are three
documents that have all of the scope support stuff and essentially I
took those three and melted them together, and that is what appears in
this main document in here and is what will be on the screen.

	And I’m – I hope that I captured everything that they submitted,
that they wanted in there, and we’ll certainly make any changes as we
go along, and I think at this point that’s it for me. 

Woman:	Mr. Chair, at this time I’d like to enter into the record this
(unintelligible) is the draft (unintelligible) standards, and is exhibit
3 of the July 8, 2016 draft that the proposed numbers should apply to
preparedness program standards. 

(Lamont Burton):	Okay, thank you, Chair. My co-chair has come in. Rick,
would you like to introduce yourself? 

Rick Ingram:	I’m late. My name is (Rick Ingram). I work for BP in
Houston and just glad to be here again and usually I’m the first one
here. This is a little bit unusual for me, so thank you all for
everything and especially the groups who have been working on the
document in our interim. 

(Lamont Burton):	Okay, thank you very much, Bill. So we’re at –
you’ve completed – I’m sorry, I’m a little bit off track here,
you’ve completed your update of the changes, and at this point on the
agenda I guess next up is (Victor Segnero), he’s going to do a report
from the community vulnerability and risk assessment subgroup. 

(Victor Segnero):	Good morning. 

((Crosstalk))

(Victor Segnero):	Thank you, Bill, for your hard work. I am (Victor
Segnero) with the national fallen firefighters foundation, and thank you
for all of the work of the subcommittee as well. At the last meeting in
May there were essentially six items that we took away that the group
asked us to go back and revisit. The first was actually already covered,
where we were asked to go back and look at the vulnerability and risk
assessment as a definition, so Bill has already covered that. That’s
in section C1 under definitions and acronyms. 

	And as mentioned, we added some wording to the community vulnerability
and risk assessment where we included the assessment is intended to
include human created vulnerabilities and natural disasters, and then we
added the facility vulnerability risk assessment, which is essentially
the same. The second item we were asked to look at is – and the
comment that was made is, we wanted to make sure that we’re not
burying the headline or really the intent of section E for establishing
your emergency services capability. 

	So what – we then, the headline being then what will ESO do and what
will they not do, so in sections E2, E3, and E5, we added some wording
or I guess in the case of E2 I think it was already there, but
essentially it’s essential forecast, the potential outcomes for an
incident, where available resources did not meet the needs of an
identified vulnerability. 

	Under section 3, the ESO shall evaluate the resources needed including
personnel and equipment for mitigation of emergency incidents,
identified in the community vulnerability risk assessment and
established and providing the types and levels of emergency services, it
is capable of performing and determine the need for a pre-incident plan
as outlined in section J. 

	Now I’ll note that section J is in the update is now section K, so
just another change there, and then lastly the ESO shall only perform
the type and level of services it specifies in accordance with section
E3, which is the one I just read. So the other point was that there was
a really strong feeling that the ESO really needs to go back and review
the subtitles 2 and 3 to make sure that that’s incorporated into their
assessment. 

	So we added section E1, Roman numeral 6, where all facilities are
within the response area or subject to reporting requirements under the
emergency planning committee right to know act, also known as the
superfund amendment, and reauthorization act of 1986 which SARA will be
included in the ESO’s community risk and vulnerability assessment, and
we hope that covers the intent of what you were trying to accomplish
there. 

	As was previously mentioned in section – what is now section K,
previously known as section J, the – we wanted to make sure that there
was that link between pre-incident planning and the pre-incident
vulnerability assessment, so we added in section E1 Roman numeral 6 and
– or I’m sorry, Roman numerals 7 and 8 where we included some
wording related to pre-incident planning, and then there was a concern
there that much of the document when we were working on it did not
include non-government ESOs such as fire brigades. 

	So we added, and I’ll go through E1, E1 Roman numeral II, Roman
numeral III, I’m sorry, IV, V, VI, VII, and section 3, we all added
words such as facilities to make sure that it’s inclusive of
non-government ESOs. At the last meeting in May we were asked to include
NSPA 1250 and NSPA 1620 into the references. NSPA 1250 is recommended
practices in fire and emergency service organization risk management. 

	And NSPA 1620 is standard for pre-incident planning, those were both
included into the references section and then just one last item, that
as I was reviewing this document for today I noticed that somewhere in
there we lost something we had included in a previous version of it, and
it’s formerly in section E17, we had that the ESO will forecast the
types of skill support the ESO anticipates it will need for the purposes
of ensuring the skilled support employer is advised of likely responses.


	So I’d like to make sure we add that into and Bill, I’ll give you a
copy of this if you’d like to make sure we add that in somewhere along
the lines, probably when I was working on – I failed to – I lost
that, and I knew Bill or (Spencer) would give me a hard time about it,
so I wanted to make sure we included that back in. So that concludes the
report, so again, thanks for the work of the committee. If I missed
anything, please feel free to chime in. 

(Lamont Burton):	Okay, thank you, (Victor). Are there any thoughts or
comments from the committee, subcommittee? Yes. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I have a procedural question for (Sarah), actually. 

(Sarah):	Yes. 

Man:	I had worked that meeting and you all are the ones that have to
live with the application of the standards. In our effort to ensure that
facilities were included, does the word or result in a choice of an ESO
to do one or the other? 

(Sarah):	Okay, show me exactly. 

Man:	So on page – on the draft regulation under large – or E1, I’m
on page 9 of the draft document that was down. 

(Sarah):	Subcommittee reports? 

Man:	Correct. 

(Sarah):	Okay. 

Man:	So it just – it indicates that it ought to be in draft regulatory
language, the entire document, page 9, it indicates that the ESO shall
conduct a community or facility vulnerability risk assessment, and the
only thing that I want to make sure that we’re not doing is giving the
ESOs the opportunity to choose to do one or the other and believe that
they’ve met the intent of the standard. So I’m asking from a
regulatory stance, you know? Does the word or give the ESOs choice to do
one or the other and meet the standard without having done actual
comprehensive assessment? 

(Sarah):	I think the or does exactly what you fear. This is (Sarah), so
I think the or does exactly what you are concerned about. This does
stress that you can do one or the other. What you could do is put shall
conduct comprehensive community and facility such as both A, community
and facility, want to clarify the point of which…

Bill Hamilton:	This is Bill Hamilton. The idea as I think from the
facility was because we’re also dealing with you know individual
entities with fire brigades, and they would not have to do anything
necessarily outside their fence in the community. So the community was
intended for somebody, you know, it’s more like a fire department who
is protecting an entire community, and the word facility was intended
more for the you know, the individual entity of a fire brigade if you
will. So how do we do – how do we differentiate that? 

((Crosstalk))

(Sarah):	Well one thing that you could do, I mean if something larger
than a brigade is supposed to do both a community and facility one, then
you should state that. You have a separate sentence that indicates in
the case of a workplace fire brigade, you’ll have to conduct it for
the facility. So it becomes sort of an exception or it becomes a
clarification. 

(Lamont Burton):	Bill Warren. 

Bill Warren:	Bill Warren in Arizona, I understand where Bill’s coming
from because for example we have a large (unintelligible) plant that has
over 2300 employees with its own independent fire department onsite,
it’s not a brigade, it’s an actual fire department, but it still
stays within the confines of the factory itself, so theirs would be more
of the facility assessment based on their needs, but the fire department
local, city, or town fire department I think would be the one that would
have to do the whole community element, not just the one individual
facility. 

	So I think I just want to make sure that we don’t over-regulate this
to where we’re required to do both when it may not be necessary for
certain entities within…

(Sarah):	I think as a suggestion quite the opposite, that you could say
for a fire brigade or a workplace cited – or fire group, firefighters,
that you could do it just the facility, but because of the exception or
for clarification you put the broader requirement to conduct both, if
that’s what your intention is. (Mr. Tobias), is it your intention that
the (unintelligible) community and facility vulnerabilities, or do you
– or it could be facility or…

(Matt Dillia):	This is (Matt Dillia). If I recall correctly the
discussion was actually born out of an – a desire to ensure that ESOs
functionally fire departments, community based fire departments,
conducted both a community and facility assessment of all of the hazards
within their geographic response area. The concern I have is that in a
desire to ensure that they did that, we inadvertently gave them the
means – right. 

((Crosstalk))

(Sarah):	So my suggestion at this point is just to put the or into an
and, and add another sentence, like clarify just to warrant concern of a
facility – that’s located within a facility fire brigade, if you
want to add anything else, facility based view that they only have to do
the facility, because it is interpretated that the larger ESO, the
community based, will be doing the broader. 

Man:	Yes, right. 

Man:	I’m sorry, I was just going to say maybe the solution is a better
definition of community. Every fire department response entity has a
primary area they’re responsible for, so if it’s industrial it’s
inside the fence, if it is a jurisdictional piece, then it’s their
primary response area, so a piece of it you could say the community
definition is the area they have primary service delivery in, because
you could have one jurisdiction, (unintelligible) county, for example,
that has 47 fire facilities in it and 37 independent volunteer
corporations. 

	So I think the solution would be to a better definition of community,
which is their primary response area, because every fire department has
that, and that would be including industrial or anyone else, a plant, so
they would not be responsible for anything outside their perimeter
fence. Just a thought. 

(Lamont Burton):	And Bill Warren – oh, I’m sorry, (Pat), did you
have a…

(Pat):	A question I probably have – I don’t know. I’m just
thinking that you know, fire brigades standards, even though you have a
facility, and maybe I just don’t understand it enough, but don’t
they still have to do an assessment as far as the resources coming into
the facility? I mean, I – you know and I could be confused here
because I know that if you had a situation where you had a facility
within a community, then the ESO needs to make sure that they understand
that they’re a facility, a risk there that they have to identify. 

	Does that facility in the fire brigade standard, does that facility
when they call for additional resources, and I think there is a –
sometimes there’s a mutual response in that pattern that they have to
understand too, what their – what the resources are that the community
is actually going to spend. There’s – it’s just not so you know,
segregated into two different areas, there, but that might not be in
this discussion, but I’m just you know, throwing another wrench in the
equation here. 

Man:	I was curious if we couldn’t just say comprehensive community
and/or facility vulnerability and risk assessment of hazards within its
response area as needed with some of these services it provides are
expected to be performed. Would that simplify it or…

((Crosstalk))

(Sarah):	… use of and/or (unintelligible) because there’s – it
invites questions about interpretation. 

Man:	I’m not surprised. 

(Sarah):	Okay. 

Man:	Just thought I would ask. 

Man:	Sure. Matt, this is (Unintelligible). I would recommend that we
where we have inserted or facility, throughout the document that we
would put and – we would replace or with the word and, and then we
would put a qualifier at the end of either the section or the objective
under number one that identifies that this facility ESOs are responsible
for that area of their primary response you know, district, as opposed
to being responsible for the larger community around them. 

(Lamont Burton):	Yes. 

(Victor Segnero):	This is (Victor), and I agree with (Victor Segnero),
with the changing or to an and, but I think the qualifier is this
(unintelligible) Roman numeral I and II where it says the assessment of
the hazard within each response area where the emergency services it
provides are expected to be performed. 

	And then under Roman numeral II, the vulnerability and risk assessment
will be in appropriate areas of the jurisdiction and facilities, change
that to and, where ESO will be required to provide mitigation efforts.
So it’s – I believe that the documents would be and clearly
identifies what the ESO is responsible to do, but I’ll leave that to
the committee with more discussion needed. 

(Lamont Burton):	Yes, Bill Warren. 

Bill Warren:	Yes, Bill Warren in Arizona, do we really need the or, or
the and? Can’t we just say conduct a community, facility vulnerability
and risk assessment? Would that not work? 

(Victor Segnero):	This is (Victor) again. I think it would work if you
go further deeper into the document where we talk about the pre-incident
planning requirements for facilities, you know, it all ties in, so the
fact of the matter is an ESO is going to have to do a facility as well
as its community, and if it’s a fire brigade, you know, I think based
on what the document says, what it needs to do. 

(Lamont Burton):	Okay, any other thoughts or comments about this issue?
Yes, Bill Warren. 

Bill Warren:	Just as long as somewhere in it, I don’t know where
exactly to put it, (Sarah), but I think that like for each of the
qualifiers there for the internal company fire departments and brigades
that are there, some are brigades where they’re like volunteer guides,
they’re (unintelligible) if there’s an emergency, but we have
several facilities throughout the region where they have actual fixed
internal fire departments for those kinds of facilities. 

	And so just as long as we make sure that there’s a qualifier, and
also I’m concerned about as you know, from a local community
standpoint, we have a ton of small volunteer fire departments that have
limited resources and limited capabilities in doing some of this, and so
their community and their facility assessments would be I think once
it’s relatively simple for them, because their response is not as
pronounced as a fire department would be for a metropolitan area. 

Woman:	Would you like OSHA to develop some language putting together
that qualifier for you? 

Man:	I think we need something that differentiates between the
metropolitan or mid-size fire departments where you’re looking at
formal sector employees and then the small volunteer fire departments
that – and those private fire departments that work for – typically
work less. 

(Lamont Burton):	Okay, thank you, Bill. Any other thoughts or comments
about this particular issue? 

Woman:	I’d like to enter the record at this time, this exhibit before
the reports appeared by the community vulnerability and risk assessment
subgroup, and I’d like to just make a personal build at this time,
this was the outline. Bill Hamilton since the last time we met, he had a
team that was working with him on this project and now he’s a team of
one because his colleague took another job, and I just want to
compliment Bill for just being able to keep up and for everyone to
appreciate the amount of excellent work he’s doing on the team report
right now. 

((Crosstalk))

Bill Hamilton:	This is Bill Hamilton, just for the record, some of the
rest of my team is still here, (Sarah). They hadn’t quite…

((Crosstalk))

(Sarah):	… ERP, this colleague. 

Bill Hamilton:	What (Sarah) is referring to is (unintelligible) who was
– has been with us for three years and she was instrumental in our
stakeholder meetings in 2014, and she’s been instrumental in each of
the meetings in making sure that I didn’t lose track of things and she
took care of actually taking all of your name tags, putting all the
packets together, and making sure I didn’t forget anything as far as
all the steps, as far as preparing for the meetings and of course
helping out every week in the team meetings. She’s – she moved on to
the department of energy and she will be dearly missed on our team.
Thank you. 

(Lamont Burton):	Okay, thanks, Bill. (Lisa). 

(Lisa Delaney):	(Lisa Delaney), I just have a question about maybe a
point of clarification. When we talk about the individual employer fire
brigades, could we make that more comprehensive, because I’m thinking
it goes beyond the fire brigades. Perhaps you know, emergency response
teams, it wouldn’t be putting out fires, but they’d be responding to
a chemical spill. 

	So I just wanted to be – I just had a question if that would – what
would happen to that here would also include other types of emergency
response functions, teams within a facility, and that we wouldn’t
limit it to just fire brigades. 

(Lamont Burton):	Okay, thank you for your comments. Bill? 

Bill Hamilton:	I’m sorry, yes, that’s – because I’m old and
it’s an old term, that’s – actually I put it up on the screen. You
know, we use the term emergency response team and I should start
referring it to that instead of taking the shortcut of saying fire
brigade, and that is my error. But yes, in the documents we refer to
them as emergency response teams, and that way it includes all the
others, including the EMS folks, who are part of the emergency response
teams at a facility and hazmat folks, etcetera. 

(Lamont Burton):	Okay, thanks for that clarification, Bill, and okay,
(Ken Fonteneau)? 

(Ken Fontner):	(Unintelligible), just a couple areas, Bill, we need to
wordsmith is on page 10, number 5, we have more and (Sarah) pointed out
under number 8, VIII, we have and/or, so I think if that causes
(unintelligible) we probably need to wordsmith it, and also under number
3, we have or facility again, so if we’re going to change it to and,
then we probably need to make those changes also. 

(Lamont Burton):	Okay, thank you, (Ken). If I could, if it’s okay with
the subcommittee, (Sarah) had offered to have OSHA take a crack at
drafting some language to clarify the section. Is the committee okay
with that and we could take a look at it once OSHA has completed that? 

Woman:	I just asked (Mr. Warren) if he would like that, he seemed to –
in the affirmative. 

Bill Warren:	I did say that, and again I thought that in discussion with
(Victor) that we would just sort of eliminate the and/or and just put a
comma. Seems to make better sense to me (unintelligible) it’s a little
bit more, so in other words in the beginning it would simply say
developing the community, facility vulnerability and risk assessment. So
thoughts (unintelligible)? 

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt again, I would recommend that we go back and
grammatically I think it needs to fly (unintelligible) it seems like
it’d be easier saying – and I hate to get in the weeds on such a
minor thing, but I think that it’s – I think it would be good to go
back and just do some (unintelligible). 

(Lamont Burton):	Okay, so to have OSHA take a crack at crafting
something? 

Matt Tobia:	Yes. 

(Kurt Foyet):	Hi, this is (Kurt Foyet). There is some language in
interface 1620 that might be of some assistance on that. If you’d
like, I can help you with that. 

(Lamont Burton):	Okay. 

(Kurt Foyet):	It talks about risk assessment, more about accountability
to the local or to the area of responsibility, so it’s very generic,
doesn’t get into facility or community but actually talks about the
overall responsibilities. Okay. 

Woman:	(Mr. Burton), the regulatory team for this particular project is
right here in the room today, including (Amy Tryett) who is the lister
of this, and I’m certain they’ll be able to work out language that
addresses the concerns. 

(Lamont Burton):	Okay, I think that that would probably be a good thing
to do to make sure that everybody is comfortable with the language
that’s proposed. Okay, (Ken Fonteneau) had a few other recommendations
in terms of some wordsmithing and cleaning up some language throughout
this section. Are there any other thoughts or comments regarding this
point? No? We’re good? Okay. (Victor), thank you for your report. So
(Ken Fonteneau) has a report from (unintelligible) response group. 

(Ken Fonteneau):	We know that a helicopter conference call a week or so
ago with Bill Hamilton, (Matt Tivea), I think (Mr. Grady), and (Victor)
I believe was also on the conference call, discussing the feasibility of
introducing tiered level of response for the emergency pointed out in
the preamble to our document. So we had a call, there was a lot of
spirited discussion and the consensus was reached that we bring this to
the committee for further discussion. 

	There wasn’t a clear consensus of going one way or the other, but the
folks on the – the word group felt that it would – should be
discussed amongst the committee to hash it out further. In preparation
for the call this spreadsheet that you have copies of in your packet,
and it lists the various emergency services that are in the preamble and
we kind of took it and added some other information. 

	The one I want to start off pointing out the first one is on the back
of the very bottom. It is already in federal language under the hazmat
1910 documentation of awareness operations and technicians. Oh, if we do
look at various tiered levels of responders, perhaps that is one way to
looking at it so we’ll have some continuity among more of the
different services provided. 

	Under vehicle machinery, it’s an area I have a little of some
expertise, some knowledge of, I actually kind of broke down these deals
to give an example of what an awareness level person might be required
to have, an operations level person and a technician person, and we can
you know, the committee condones or goes with that, we could take that
same thing and expand it to the various services. 

	The big fly in the ointment is going to be in firefighting, because
we’re right now very familiar with firefighter one and firefighter
two, it’s an accepted NSPA standard 10-01, but throughout the country
there’s been an asking for another level and in the career area it’s
not really a level that would be needed because in the career you
don’t have support workers, per se. 

	In the volunteer area you have a large, large number of people that
show up on the scene, they’re not going to fight the fire, but they
are going to help you with the emergency, and there’s been a call or
askings for that, (Chairman Spielberg) did request the NSPA to come up
with a separate document or a separate chapter in 1001 to address this.
It got bounced around. 

	Right now it’s pretty well still being bounced around, but what
we’re finding out is more and more states have tiered level of
responders reflecting other than fire one and fire two, and that I want
to be on the record of being very clear, we’re not asking for a level
of firefighter less than firefighter one, but we’re asking for a level
that defines and delineates what a support worker is. 

	That’s the person that may be hooking up hose to a hydrant, changing
out air bottles, doing all of the stuff we need you know, in our market
that has to be done by people who are not going to be firefighter one,
so to make it very clear, that’s kind of what I’m looking at, and
unfortunately that kind of got muddied up real bad in January when we
had the 1001 committee meeting. 

	That request got lumped into a firefighter one light and firefighter
this or that, and there was a very strong pushback, but on the second
part, there is also a lot of states that have their own level of
firefighter besides one and two. Mr. Chair, if you don’t mind, we did
do a survey, got 26 responses. Wait, let me look at my notes here. We
got 21 responses from states. 15 of them had levels other than just
firefighter one and firefighter two as being recognized. 

	They had formal training programs and formal duties and skills that are
pointed out for them, so we had those discussions and we bring it to
this body for discussion at the appropriate time, and that’s sort of
the way that conference call went if I remember correctly. 

(Lamont Burton):	Okay, do we have any comments or questions? Or
suggestions? 

Man:	I’m sorry. 

Man:	Okay, that’s it. So again, I’m holding this document to the
levels of responders by 2216, that’s the document you were referring
to us, then. 

Man:	That was the document we used for the teleconference, basically to
call for reference. It was also possibly discussed as has to be
developed further and put into the annex of our completed documents, or
just for floor discussion as to the appropriate administering of tiered
levels, because there are if you look at it various places on here such
as EMS or four-tiered levels. 

	EMR, EMT, advanced EMT, and paramedic, (unintelligible) with the hazmat
or if we’re looking at tiered levels of responders that are
appropriate, that covers the needs. So if everybody will take a look at
this, this is something that we would like to put in an annex in the
document. Bill Warren. 

Bill Warren:	I wanted to make sure like on the (unintelligible)
firefighters that we were (unintelligible) standards, would we approve
them in that sense or concerned that it’s a little bit different, but
I think that compared – I’m ignorant of wild land firefighters. We
have big grass fires, but we don’t know anything about wild land. I
would defer to people who have more knowledge and experience on wild
land. 

	Bill and (Daniel), that’s your forte, I’m open to listen to
anything. I just think we need to be inclusive of that group too,
because they do a whole lot of work particularly in the southwest and
the northeast. Sorry. Bill Warren from Arizona, so I think we need to
include the wild land firefighter documentation that comes in with this,
so that we see what they’re doing so we don’t conflict with some of
these other organizations. 

Man:	Another question I had, would we be also including aerial
firefighting in this part of it? Bill Hamilton might be able to answer
that. So we have wild land firefighting. Would we include aerial
firefighting groups? I mean, by your comment on that, you might have
some experience or knowledge about that. 

Man:	(Unintelligible) but you don’t have aerial firefighting, other
than in those wildland areas, but I agree with Bill, we do need to take
a look at this (unintelligible), the highest right now around the
country, with the fires that we have and all different tiers of that
(unintelligible) training having structural firefighting, having these
(unintelligible) about the wildland firefighting, and you know, we have
that (unintelligible) right now. And we’re having the knowledge
coupled with training and understanding, and then (unintelligible)
wildland programs (unintelligible). 

(Lamont Burton):	So we have a couple of questions in front of us, and
not from my perspective, do we want to include you know, maybe develop
this into a matrix or further develop it, and do we want to have someone
look into the wildland firefighting to further develop that
(unintelligible)? Matt. 

(Matt Tivea):	This is (Matt Tivea). I think before we get into the
discussion about whether or not we need to (unintelligible), I think
that if (Ken) was here, (Ken Willett) was here, he would share with you
that this – there is a component of this that is growing
(unintelligible) and that is (unintelligible) cannot direct an FEA to
create a standard (unintelligible). 

	And although the concept of a support training program is laudable and
I recognize the need for it, there is no (unintelligible) so is that
what the regulation must say the term of support, with the idea that
somehow another agency is going to do the training program by which the
individual is going to be measured I think is unrealistic. 

	The idea is that – I don’t know that (unintelligible) is interested
in getting in the business of running these prescriptive trans programs
that prescribe the minimum skills necessary, skills – knowledge,
skills, and abilities to meet the intent of the standard. Now, and I’m
sensitive to what’s being asked for and I recognize the fact that
there are many people who respond at all, who play a very supportive
role, very critical, but functionally if you ask those individuals what
their title is, they’d call themselves firefighters. 

Man:	So Matt, I want to follow up with you on that question a little
bit. Could we just use this as a reference document and that would go to
OSHA to deal as well, remark, could we have a – for reference only
document here in our – I have seen that you know, in other OSHA
standards. (Andy Levinson). 

Man:	I didn’t want to just (unintelligible) everybody can hear me, so
Matt, I understand your concerns but (unintelligible) presented as an
option for the committee to understand. We could have different
categories like awareness operations, add new categories that inspire
(unintelligible) for emergency response support, and just describe these
types of activities without specifying an FTA training. 

	So you’d say you know, firefighter one is for this, firefighter two
is for that, and then have nothing that is in FTA standards specified,
but still allow you know, that category and say the responding
organizations, the ESO shall develop a training program for those
people. So then you know, we don’t have to tie in FTA directly into
everything we do, you know, (unintelligible) if the committee thinks it
makes sense to create you know, the essential category of people who
have less training clearly than interior fire (unintelligible). 

	But it’s still going to be closed to hazardous areas and need to be
smart about how they operate in close proximity to those hazards, so
there’s flexibility to do this. I just want to point that out to the
committee. And…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	(Unintelligible) so the three-tiered responders to hazmat and then
the awareness there were like six basic skill functions that were
pointed out by OSHA, and in the operations there were six or eight, and
in the technician, there were a handful of skills that they would need.
It wasn’t a training program, but it was what you should know. 

	And I was thinking along the lines, well if we can do it for hazmat,
then firefighting is such a big part of everything we do, we should
possibly take a look at what (Andy) just said and say okay, we’ll have
these levels and kind of very, very broadly see what those major skills
are and then let the marketplace which is what will happen, take care of
writing the training documents and the standards. Because I just went
through the transition from 472 to 1072 with the hazmat group, and they
took the OSHA standards were taken and used as a basis for writing the
trading or the NFPA standard. And then the marketplace will develop the
training programs that will meet those 1072 when they come out this
summer. 

	Sort of the thinking process I had to get the tiered level of
firefighting defined or even if it is linked in an access because it is
a big part of what we do. We have been struggling with that part because
Matt is exactly correct. They show up and I am a firefighter. Well what
level?

	Being an incident manager I had 350 firefighters working for me and may
have had 50 firefighters a variety of everything else. Major incident.

	So it poses a little bit of an issue but we have kind of split it out a
little bit more I think it would help us in many ways. 

	Understanding that you need to volunteer (unintelligible) not so much
with the (unintelligible).

Man:	So I have got one comment myself. So Matt to speak to your point.
From everything I understand if this is proved and if it ever does
become a standard it will be a performance standard not a prescriptive
standard. If I am not mistaken.

	So that, you know, any entity that falls under this or that it applies
to we will be able to decide how they apply it which would be
appropriate to their particular business. I use business as a term for
the ESOs.

	So they decide how to do it. We are giving them some guidelines and
they are following it. And I will ask (Mark) is that correct? I assume
you are in (Andy’s) real world here (unintelligible).

(Mark):	Yes this is intended to be performance standard.

Man:	Could you repeat that?

(Mark):	I said, yes it is intended to be a performance standard.

Man:	So if we – so just to kind of help clarify. If we adopted this as
into the document somehow it would be most likely the non-mandatory
appendix. Would that be correct? Anybody? (Andy) we can’t hear him.

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Man:	(Andy) (unintelligible).

Man:	Web page it could be, you know, that type of helpful guidance
(unintelligible).

Man:	So it would be a guidance (unintelligible). So with that being
said, Matt going back to you. Just would that help if we – I do think
it is important personally for the EFOs to have some kind of guidance
document and this might serve well to do that if we expanded it a little
bit for whatever the group decides to do.

	I think (Chris) (unintelligible) or did you have a comment? Or Bill.

Bill Hamilton:	Yes two things. We are following first developed a
concept of having some sort of table. Page 10 is a note and the idea was
it was just to be examples of various types of level of service and we
(unintelligible) responders.

	It was to accompany whatever regulatory language we could kind of come
up with about the tiers. But the idea was here are some different things
to think about. It could be a checklist. It could be whatever.

	And so that it was started out with the idea of just being something
helpful as a non-mandatory appendix.

Man:	It can be expanded, you know, to include lots of other stuff. So
you are referring to the notes at the bottom of Page 10 in the draft
document.

Man:	Correct. I mean that is what we originally thought of it. 

Man:	So with that being said, if we do utilize this I think there is
some comment Bill and others about further defining the wildland
firefighting and maybe getting a little more detail on that portion of
it.

	Would anybody like to take that on to contact folks that are interested
in that Bill? Bill would anybody like to help Bill with that?

	So Bill and (Pat Morrison) will be working together to further develop
that one section and the two levels of responders. And once…

Man:	We are talking Page 10 three or four is that what we are talking
about?

		

Man:	Yes and…

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Man:	That’s right and…

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Man:	And utilizing this draft two levels of responders matrix that has
been started. And I would suggest that we take this and I could make it
a little bit more formal. Put it into spreadsheet.

Man:	There is some more work (unintelligible). 

Man:	Work in progress. It is in Excel and it is a spreadsheet format. So
this would be changed.

Man:	Okay. So this is truly a working draft.

Man:	A working draft is exactly what it is.

Man:	But it seems to be a good start. It is up to the team to decide how
much detail or how little detail we want in there. Bill
(unintelligible).

Man:	Yes (unintelligible) just wanted to make sure that (unintelligible)
opportunities for other than (unintelligible). We have those elements
that could be formulated into this. I think would work better for us.

(Ken):	And this is (Ken) if you will note on there a couple of
incidences. For instance, medical that is not in it (unintelligible) DOT
they are the ones that are writing the standards for the medical portion
of it.

	So if it is a (unintelligible) or a BLM or something like that
(unintelligible).

Man:	If there is some alternative I think we should accept it.

Man:	Okay. (Grady) did you have a comment?

(Grady):	It was covered.

Man:	Okay.

(Grady):	(Unintelligible) brought it up. Just the working document.
Thank you though.

Man:	Okay. Kathy?

Kathy Robinson:	I just wanted to support - (Kathy Robinson). I just
wanted to support what (Ken) said about the DOT levels for the EMS
responders. Most of the states are following the national EMS education
agenda in that regard and are using that terminology. So that would be
appropriate.

Man:	All right. So I will ask is does anybody else know of any other
standards or references that we might add in here that would be
appropriate? To fulfil our scope which is back on Page 1 as (Lisa)
pointed out earlier.

	We want to make sure that we stay within the boundaries of our scope we
developed in the beginning. So I will just put that out to the committee
if anyone knows of any further references please let us know.

Woman:	Mr. Chair (unintelligible) the draft spreadsheet prepared by the
(unintelligible).

Man:	And just to clarify, Bill Warren and (Pat Morrison) will be working
on the further definition of wildlife firefighting. 

	(Ken) did you have anything else to add?

(Ken):	Well like most people here I want to thank Bill because he has
really been spread thin and we are tugging at him from 43 different
directions right now because we are so busy. Bill has done a tremendous
job (unintelligible) of working with the group. 

	And also I want to thank everybody in the room and also those on the
workgroup for the ability to discuss these things with open minds and,
you know, (unintelligible) have a (unintelligible) and really appreciate
that very, very much.

	It has been suggested that we take a quick break. So why don’t we
take 13 minutes, 10:37 come back at 10 until.

((Crosstalk))	

Man:	Okay folks. Let’s go ahead and start getting our seats so we can
get started. Please. I hate to break up good conversation.

Man:	Okay next on the agenda is a report from the skill support
subgroup. I know (Spencer) was here a couple of (unintelligible). Maybe
he hadn’t made it back yet.

	Minor change in the agenda. We will get to skill support in a second.
Bill was suggesting while we just had the conversation on the cured
response maybe we go back to the regulatory text language and make sure
people are comfortable with what’s there.

	With the understanding that the Excel spreadsheet that is going to be
flushed out would be an appendix or explanatory material that would go
along with it. Bill you want to talk a little bit about what is there?

Bill Hamilton:	Yes this is Bill Hamilton. It is Number 4 on Page 10. And
there is (unintelligible) developed language (unintelligible) put on
paper the – it is not bullet but sort of bullet points are just some
examples that I pulled from the Excel spreadsheet that the subgroup
worked on.

Man:	So Bill if we are going to have the tiered levels of responders
non-mandatory language do we need this language? Could we just do a
reference for that? Or do we want to…

Man:	Bill we need to at least have something in the regulatory language
that tells them to establish, you know, kind of like we said, establish
something of the tiers of the responder’s responsibilities. And then
go back and look at the spreadsheet.

	Because remember the spreadsheet also is the not just the tier of
responsibilities and duties of the responders but it is also, you know,
what types of services we will provide.

	So in this section we are talking about capabilities, establishing the
capabilities of the emergency service organization and we had said that
we wanted to identify different tiers. And so we just need to kind of
say something as I said for them to establish those tiers.

	Remember because it ties back to the different tiers because you said
you wanted to do different levels if you will of for medical
requirements and training requirements. And this is just a way to tell
them to identify the different levels or different tiers if you will. 

	Because the training requirements in the medical requirements and
fitness requirements tie back to this.

	So does anybody have any comments on this?

(Chris):	(Chris) (unintelligible). If we have already started listing
them are we going to just list them like that? Because those things you
can’t have – you can’t use a reference to a document. I mean we
are already part of the way there.

Man:	My only concern is if we start listing things specifically if we
can be comprehensive enough. Because it would be difficult to list
everything. There are a lot of variables that we might not catch but
that is just my (unintelligible).

Man:	So do that and then put not excluded to.

(Andy):	This is (Andy) let me jump in. One of the things that we do when
we are writing regulatory tax like this is you want to give examples so
that people understand the concept of what you are getting to but that
is why it says include but not limited to.

	So people can do things that are different but it gets the concept
without giving the exhaustive list. Because if you get into giving an
exhaustive list then the things that are there and covered and the
things that are missing are not.

	And this gives flexibility and then we can explain in preamble what we
mean by this and then say there is a non-mandatory appendix that may be
useful to help further, you know, sort of give that performance oriented
flexibility.

	But explain the concept enough that if somebody says okay I know what
you mean by tiers. Does that help what is in and what’s out?

Man:	So we have some pretty good draft language here in my opinion. Do
we want to try to – and then we have the note for the appendix. Do we
want to try to take care of this here and now since we have got the
document in front of us on the screen?

	Or do we want to defer to a – to OSHA to Bill to have to work this
between now and our next meeting? I think the reason we have the screen
up here and the document posted is so that we can actually do this work
now and get it over with.

	So with that being said, if that is all right with everybody. (Lamont)
do you agree with that? (Andy) do you agree with that?

(Andy):	Yes.

Man:	Okay. So we are looking at – so this is a broad list here.
Responsibilities you use qualifications and capabilities. Should we say
based on the projected response or just as it is?

Man:	Or below that it kind of references that too.

Man:	Okay. 

Man:	Let me offer one suggestion. I think a way that we can make this
simpler is you can take that first one which is fire rescue, technical
rescue and just make it emergency operations support awareness. You know
or emergency activity or emergency response to support awareness
operations.

	And then it is based on whatever that is. EMT I think needs to be a
little bit different just because there is the national EMT categories.
And the only thing that I would be careful about was HazMat. And I am
not sure if we need to even mention it here.

	Is because most HazMat activities will still be covered by 19, 10 1 and
20. And the only thing that you can do really here is add additional
requirements that would go above and beyond what is in an existing 19 10
1 20. 

	So for example, if you wanted to say the NFPA PPE for HazMat, you know,
we could write that into here but we have got to be very careful that
people understand that most HazMat activity is still governed by 120.

	We are not opening up 120. There is a Provision 120 that says you may
have to follow more stringent requirements than other standards so we
can add a little here.

Man:	So would we want to – I will just throw this out there. Would we
want to refer back to our scope and use the same list that we have in
the scope? So that would be – or do we think as a team would that be
necessary?

	So in our scope we have firefighting prior risk, Emergency Medical
Service, technical rescue, vehicle machine rescue, water rescue and
recovery and we do have hazardous material spill release mitigation
search and rescue.

	But do we want to use that list so it reflects our scope or do we just
want to have a few examples? (Pat Morrison).

(Pat Morrison):	I think what you did simplifying and just putting
emergency operations there. (Unintelligible) that covers probably you
know 90% of what we are trying to capture here. 

Man:	And even perhaps removing the HazMat (unintelligible). The HazMat
is even though unless you have no choice to keep that. Emergency
operations (unintelligible).

	But this is really, if I am reading the document really does clearly
say that, you know, exactly what I want in (unintelligible) but exactly
what I think our attempt is here in the process.

	Knowing that we don’t have I think right now some (unintelligible)
earlier knowing we don’t have in our emergency operations for this
support. And I don’t even think we have for the EMS what this report
(unintelligible) built out to capture what that actually
(unintelligible).

Man:	So Bill do you have the computer that is projecting on the screen?

Bill Hamilton:	Yes.

Man:	Do you want to just go ahead and change that language now and we
will have it done?

Bill Hamilton:	And it is exactly why I am here.

Man:	All right. That is wonderful.

Man:	Just a couple of things to point out. With your technical rescue
you do have (unintelligible) and test issues not asking for with fire. I
want to note also on the matrix it talks about awareness operations and
technician and one on one it does not cover those tiered groups.

	So at some point you are going to have to define those from an OSHA
standpoint if they are not already in existence in the NFPA reference.
HazMat it is. It is awareness operations technician. So just to point
that out. 

Man:	So do you have since you are with NFPA do you have some definitions
there that would clarify that or reference?

Man:	I can give you definitions from a rescue, technical rescue
standpoint. The list in the scope of several different types of rescue
is all encompassed in technical rescue, that 1670 or 1006 if those are
what you want to reference.

	But as fire is concerned they don’t use those right now. It is Fire 1
and 2. 

Man:	So we have a list of action items here. Would you mind if we put
you down to cover that?

Man:	Absolutely.

Man:	And I can’t read your name tag.

(Kirk Boyd):	It is (Kirk Boyd).

Man:	Okay thanks (Kirk). 

Man:	I think (Kirk) brings a good point. We have a definition for
emergency support or emergency operation support. And we may want to
come up with one and I think the concept is that (unintelligible) is
people that are operating in support of emergency operations but are not
actually in hazardous areas and not expected to be in hazardous areas.

	And so you know we can come with a definition that says, their
supporting activities. They have awareness of hazard areas and how to
avoid those hazard areas and how to operate within the incident command
system. And a couple of other things and leave it at that.

	And then leave it up to the emergency - the authority having
jurisdiction to figure out what the appropriate training is for those
people as long as we have kind of defined that is what support is. 

	You are close to hazard areas but not in them. And you have got enough
information to avoid them and stay (unintelligible).

Man:	I agree with (unintelligible). Just another comment. So I think if
you – when we go to our matrix and we got to our chart. When we have
the list let’s just say it is emergency operations and support
awareness operations technician. Some of the categories might not have
all four. They may only have two (unintelligible).

	Some might have all of them. Some might have three of them. But I can
see that being a – you can look at that (unintelligible). We can flush
those out and (unintelligible) every single emergency operations.

Man:	Right and I think we do have, you know, for example that helps.
Okay. 

	You know we see support operations and technician. And to me support
awareness is sort of a safe thing. I am not really hung up on names per
se (unintelligible) but then when I read it again when it says examples
of, you can look at it as support or awareness.

	But it is sort of in my mind awareness and support are the same thing.
And I don’t know if that makes sense or doesn’t make sense.
(Unintelligible). 

	I think the difference between support and awareness. If you look at
the original concept from HazMat. In awareness those are emergency
responders who normally respond. And the awareness is to make sure that
they know that there are certain situations that they are not trained to
handle.

	Whereas the support people never expect or should never be expected to
go into a hazard area at all. And so that I think is that key
distinction between support and awareness.

Man:	Could we possibly in the beginnings then define some of those
terms? We don’t have any of those definitions. That might be something
that would help. I was just looking in their definitions maybe to find
those.

	Perhaps (unintelligible) I am fine with the (unintelligible) examples
of. It gives you either or.

	Any other comments or questions or suggestions? Let’s look at the
language that Bill adds there. Does everybody agree with that?

	So you want to read that to us Bill for the record? 

Bill Hamilton:	Sure. These four (unintelligible) responder
responsibilities, duties, qualifications and capabilities. Examples of
tiers include but are not limited to emergency operations, which are
support, awareness, operation and technician.

	And EMS support, EMR, EMT, advanced EMT, paramedic and nurse.

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Man:	And can we spell out emergency medical service or do we need to?

Man:	Yes we do and when we do I will also be selling out
(unintelligible), EMRs and EMTs.

Man:	Okay so we have those defined. As long as those are defined.

Man:	Yes well I have got plenty to do between now and our September
meeting.

Man:	Okay.

Man:	Fix all my acronyms (unintelligible).

Man:	Well if we can have definitions as appropriate. Then the next step
would be the – you are so good Bill. For the record, Bill is changing
the spelling out emergency medical services.

	Next step would be can we formalize that note, see appendix for table
of checklist. So I suggest that we go ahead and change that next
sentence. So see appendix or do we want to leave it like this? Is it a
normal way to leave it right there?

Man:	Yes. Typically when we have the notes we put them in bracket like
that.

Man:	Okay.

Man:	At least that is what we have done throughout the rest of the
document. 

Man:	Okay. I stand corrected. So thank you very much. Do we have any
questions on that sentence? Does that look okay to everybody? Kathy?

Kathy Robinson:	(Kathy Robinson). I have one comment on the emergency
medical services. There are four titles there that (Ken) suggested are
the ones that are described by the DOT.

	While I am always in support of it including nurses and physicians in
those categories. They don’t have formal EMS descriptions there
defined by the various professions.

	So if you want to leave nurse in there I might also include physician
or I would take nurse out and just leave it with the DOT titles.

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Man:	I added it for – I will be happy to take it out air flight
transport. 

Kathy Robinson:	And I agree with that but there is an increasingly
physicians are also (unintelligible). So I mean I really could go either
way.

Man:	And it is just an example so they have…

Kathy Robinson:	Correct.

Man:	So they get to fight for themselves what it is that they are
putting on there. So I took off nurse.

Man:	Thank you Kathy.

Man:	We have one descending vote (unintelligible).

Man:	I just think that as was indicated by Bill earlier that we do have
a lot of times where flight nurses are on emergency responses, you know
landing in the middle of the freeway and pulling folks out
(unintelligible). I like the fact that these are just examples.

	If you want to take it out I am okay with that as long as they know
that they could investigate including (unintelligible).

Man:	Okay thanks Bill. Matt.

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt just a couple of comments. The EMR curriculum
is about 40 hours if I am not mistaken. I don’t know how much less
training you could possibly give an individual and still meet their
performance intent.

	I don’t know – I would say that at least from my perspective there
is – I don’t know that the EMS community is prepared to even
entertain the word support at the lower level.

	

	I mean EMR is a very, very basic level entry program. I mean I am not
sure what role a support person would play on emergency medical services
incident that wouldn’t require them to have some basic level of, you
know, some type of performance based training.

	I would agree in support nurse and also putting the physician in only
because they are both increasingly active in the free hospital
environment.

	You are seeing, you know, a lot of medical directors who are
operationally engaged with their folks in the pre-hospital environment.
So just a recognition to that and the pre-hospital nurses would
definitely be telling me right now that they should be included.

Woman:	(Unintelligible).

Man:	(unintelligible) also but that would (unintelligible).

Woman:	And I am hearing the medical director say the same thing. So I
support what you just said. I wonder if – I mean the support person
might be an emergency vehicle operator who is not certified as a medical
person.

Man:	That is a good point.

Woman:	Don’t call them drivers. 

Man:	Don’t call them drivers.

Man:	And again this is just examples of tiers. You know just getting –
it is going to be as we said flushed out more in the appendix. So I
could put EMR/EMT… and leave the rest of it.

Woman:	I am not opposed to having (unintelligible) but I would also ask
the physician if they are going to have that.

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Man:	So it sounds like there is – we are beginning to have consensus
to add back in nurse and physician.

Woman:	And add physician.

Man:	Okay. Does anybody have a problem with that? Okay. So Bill let’s
try to add in nurse and physician. They work hard for us so we might as
well include.

	Okay anybody else have any comments, suggestions on this section? On
Number 4.

	Okay Kathy are you happy?

Kathy Robinson:	I am very happy.

Man:	Kathy is happy. We are all happy. That is good. That is kind of
your section there. Okay.

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Man:	We could put the - (unintelligible) title of the proposed title of
the appendix. I think that would appropriate myself. Any comments on
that from the team? That would be Appendix working title is tiered
levels of responders.

	(Grady) is that specifically what you are asking for? Good suggestion.
And that is good place keeper for us.

Man:	Yes sir. But it is also a table that includes the tight levels of
service in addition to the tiers responders. So at some point we need to
take this title out of it anyway. But I will put this in a place holder.

Man:	Okay. Put it in parenthesis. Okay, any other suggestions, comments,
concerns?

Man:	(Unintelligible) appendix below with what we are suggesting out
there. We could call it Emergency operations EMS tiered level of
responders and kind of take care of maybe the title. 

Man:	Any other suggestions for a title for that or do we want to try to
tackle that now? 

	Bill were you – so okay just so everybody knows let’s just kind of
point of order here with (unintelligible). We have today, tomorrow and
Thursday and then we are going to have one more meeting after that.

	So whatever we are going to do we need to do it not just talk about it.
So that’s the reason we are here today and we can call for a three day
meeting. It is also why we have the screen out there with Bill’s
trusty hands at the computer who has done such great work.

	So the more we can clarify this now and get it done as we go, the
better it is going to be for us to get a better chance of getting this
done on time. So while everyone is here. It is just a suggestion.
Let’s look at this document. Let’s try to reach a consensus as a
group for a title of this document.

	And that way we can get that in there and we won’t be leaving all
this work to deal with. Because how long are you going to be working
Bill? Or are you like getting close to retirement? We want to make sure
that you don’t have to retire until we get this done.

Bill Hamilton:	Oh yes. 

Man:	We will have you for a little while anyway right? (Unintelligible)
okay. For the record I am being facetious.

	So let’s – how about we work on a title for this document real
quick. So currently we have got two levels of responders. What makes
more sense? 

Man:	(Unintelligible) did I just recommend tiered level of service and
responder capability. Tiered level of service and responder capability.

Man:	All right. 

Man:	Let me just suggest modifications slightly at the words something
like guidance on or suggested levels – I wouldn’t even go so far as
recommended okay. I think recommended it goes too far.

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Man:	So just something that clearly indicates that these are some nice
thoughts that people should think about but you are not required to.

Man:	And now we did say in Section 3 on Page 10, B3 what we say here is
(unintelligible) resources including personnel equipment
(unintelligible), vulnerability and risk assessment at establishing
(unintelligible) levels for emergency services that is capable of
performing.

	

	So I think (Matt’s) suggestion does speak to that sentence very well
and ties in very well. So just to take us back to that what we are
trying to accomplish here. Anybody else?

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Man:	(Pat)?

(Pat Morrison):	Just – (Pat Morrison) do we need tiers or can we just
use level of service and responder capability? I mean it just seems like
if we have tier and level it somewhat the same. We have different
levels, different tiers. Are we saying the same thing?

Man:	I think it would simplify to just say levels in my mind. 

Man:	(Unintelligible). Example of service and responder capabilities
(unintelligible).

Man:	Okay (unintelligible).

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Man:	All right if you are going to make a comment let’s speak into the
microphone so the person transcribing. 

Man:	I would recommend that you replace the word suggested – replaced
tiered with suggested.

Man:	Okay. So that will read now, suggested level of service and
responder capability. Any comments, concerns or suggestions? (Lisa).

(Lisa Delaney):	This is (Lisa Delaney). I guess I like the example
better because to me suggested seems a little more prescriptive. Maybe
that is my interpretation but if we are going with levels then I think
we need to go back up and change where we use tier in Section 4 examples
of tiers we are going to change that to level.

	I just don’t think that – I don’t know it depends on how this
appendix turns out (unintelligible).

Man:	I cannot hear you.

(Lisa Delaney):	It is depending how inclusive the appendix turns out to
be. I guess suggested to me is a little stronger than examples. I
don’t think there is going to be an all-inclusive appendix.

Man:	Any comments on use of examples rather than suggested. Examples of
rather than suggested.

Man:	I like (unintelligible). 

Man:	Be more specific please.

Man:	I really like this.

Man:	You like examples. Examples is what I was going for. If this was a
game show we would all be losing.

Man:	I agree with (Lisa). I would say that if we are not going to use
the word tiers we should be consistent in that. So examples under Number
4 I would recommend replacing tiers with levels. So established levels
of responder responsibilities. Examples of levels include.

Man:	Okay.

Man:	I agree with (Lisa). It should be one way or the other. Either
tiers or levels. I don’t care either way but it should be consistent.

Man:	Any other comments? Bill do you have any comments on that since you
are draft author here. We are going to get through this don’t be too
frustrated.

Bill Hamilton:	(Unintelligible).

Man:	So do we have a consensus? Levels rather than tiers first of all?
Do we all agree with that? Anybody have an alternative view? Okay so
levels it is. And does everybody agree with examples rather than
suggestions? Okay. 

	So it will now read, examples of levels of service and responder
capability. And then Line Number 4 so shall establish levels. Are we
going to change tiers to levels? That is the only decision we have got
left to make.

	Going once. I think levels would be better myself if we are going to be
consistent. Is there any technical reason why we have to have tiers in
there? Okay.

Bill Hamilton:	This is Bill. The types and levels I am trying to think
back to way back when.  I am trying to think of a good example. I mean
tiers for just within – I mean if you go to the individual responder
and what that individual is as opposed to the level of service that the
ESO is going to provide.

	So my type of services, for example, I hate to use firefighting. My
type of services is firefighting. The level is going to be, you know, I
can do interior and exterior structural firefighting. 

	Some grass fires, automobile fires and what have you as my levels of
service. I am not going to provide marine firefighting. I am not going
to provide aircraft firefighting. My level of service is structural
firefighting.

	Does that make sense? And then we get down into the tiers of those
firefighters. Some of them are going to provide some support functions.
Some of them are going to be able to help outside. Some of them will be
able to go inside.

	So if we – I don’t think we can just go in and start replacing at
this point levels and tiers without going back through the whole
section. Levels with tiers or tiers with levels without going back
through it all. And we working it all.

Man:	What about examples of levels of service and corresponding tiers of
responder capability? Because you really are tying them together
aren’t we? I mean I am saying this is the service we want to provide.
These are the skills that we need our responders to have in order to do
that and they should be tied together.

	This table started out as it didn’t have tiers on it. It just had the
first couple of columns that firefighting and the types of firefighting
that you were going to do. 

	You know EMS, what types of EMS service are you going to provide? And
now we have expanded it to go onto the individual tiers or the
responders capability.

Man:	The document itself that has services levels and duties. That is
further complicates it. So go ahead (Kirk). 

(Kirk Boyd):	(Kirk Boyd). I agree with (Lisa) on the examples. And with
the levels versus tiers a lot of the documents that you are referencing
in this and I can’t speak to the DOT Kathy I am not sure how they do
that. But they speak to levels not tiers.

	

	But it almost sounded, what Bill was talking about is that the tiers
further differentiate the levels. And if that is what you are doing that
is a different discussion but I agree with the levels. Just for
consistency throughout the reference documents. 

(Andy):	This is (Andy). Let me suggest this. I think the department
decides the operational level that it provides the communities. Some
people in that response organization are going to provide that highest
level. That doesn’t mean that everybody provides the highest levels.

	

	So you can still, you know, be a firefighter who is doing exterior only
even though the department is in interior fire attack department. And
only some subset of them are doing interior.

	So, you know, I think we have got the concept and I don’t know that
honestly given the limited time that we have I think we can figure out
something. We have got the concept of tier (unintelligible) figure out
the right verbiage.

Man:	So just to reference this document they need to match in my
opinion. So services levels and duties. The services and levels and
duties. And that is what is in the document currently. That is just the
headings but (unintelligible).

Man:	In looking at the note a little bit further we actually without
having a title for the appendix. When we walked in here today it said,
see appendix with the question marks. For tables checklist it shows
examples of various types and levels of services and tiers of
responders.

	So how about if we use what is highlighted, examples of various types
and levels of service and tiers of responders as the title.

Man:	Does everybody agree with that? Does anybody disagree? Good job.
Done. Okay.

Man:	(Unintelligible) take the rest of the week off.

Man:	And we will change the working title of the spreadsheet as well to
that. Does everybody agree? Okay. That is what they talked about as
sausage making. You don’t want to see the sausage making. Ugly.

	Okay. Thanks everybody. 

	Would – so right now it is 11:37. Before we go to lunch we can do
this now. We are planning on having a gentleman from EPA come in and
speak for a few minutes this afternoon. 

	(Andy) would you…

(Andy):	The gentleman who is coming (unintelligible) is an EPA. He has
been working very closely with the OSHA folks who have been working on
the executive order related to West Texas. 

	And OSHA and EPA are doing an awful lot of work coordinating to make
sure that OSHA’s PFM and EPAs, RMP, risk management plan stuff all
line up.

	That the agencies are working together sharing data and that our
policies and procedures to the extent possible coordinate with each
other. So (Maddy) is going to come in and just talk a little bit about
what EPA is doing and any implications that they might have for
emergency responders.

	Especially because their super fund stuff is hopefully everybody in
this room has received somebody in the local community like
(unintelligible) 311, 312, 313 type reporting that tells you we have
chemicals of certain quantities in our community. 

	Here is where they are stored. And so that gets into more of the EPA
angle so he will be here to talk about that. 

Man:	So RMP is – I think it is out for comment right now and the
comment period is over. Well actually comment period for the RMP is over
but it does closely tie with what we are doing. So that is the reason we
wanted to have them come in and introduce themselves.

	

	And I believe we sent that document out to everybody. Didn’t we Bill?
And the last time. If not I will try to resend that.

Bill Hamilton:	And it is worth mentioning EPA has already been through
since (unintelligible) from small business administration. EPA has
already been through their (unintelligible) which is their small
business process.

	On their work we are currently wrapping ours on PFM as a result of the
things that are going on in the executive order. And small entities
including small government organizations are one of the major groups
that would be effective potentially.

Man:	Some of the – the reason that I thought it was important is
because of (unintelligible) 2 and (unintelligible) 3 that we have
included in here for the community vulnerability assessment especially.
So that is why I believed it was pertinent and invited him in.

	So you might have some questions. He will be here around 3:15 this
afternoon. So we will have about 30 minutes with him. All right any
questions? Any comments? 

	It is now 11:40. What do we usually take like 10 after lunch? 

Man:	Yes let’s do an hour. 

Man:	12:40 we will see you back here at 12:40. Thank you very much
everybody. Great job.

((Crosstalk))	

Man:	Lunch break copy that.

Woman:	Okay thank you.

Man:	Okay.

Man:	We are on break now.

((Crosstalk))	

Man:	You will now be placed into conference.

((Crosstalk))	

Man:	It was one of those two day meetings (unintelligible).

((Crosstalk))	

Woman:	So did you spring a couple of dimples at lunch today?

Man:	That’s what we were talking about.

Woman:	Got to get them going.

Man:	I know. 

((Crosstalk))	

Man:	One long trip and I had to be – I was there for like 10 days for
work at Mandalay Bay. They have like all the pool and the other stuff
you can do stuff but not gamble. 

((Crosstalk))	

Man:	I would think that if we are trying to get things done we need to
(unintelligible). We need to figure out if what is there is going to
work everybody or not?

((Crosstalk))

Man:	All right everyone I guess it is time to reconvene. (Spencer) you
are next up with the report from the skills support subgroup.

(Spencer):	Okay thank you. (Spencer) (unintelligible) working with me
(Lisa) Kathy and (Chris) and (Jim) and (Victor). As always you guys did
a fantastic job. First thing I wanted to point out was at the last
meeting of the larger group. We were tasked with coming up with the
definition for Good Samaritan.

	So we crafted a definition which is on Page 5 and I would like to just
take a minute for the group to take a look at that and see if that meets
the criteria that we all talked about last time.

	Any thoughts? Matt? I hope you are paying attention brother.

Matt Tobia:	(Unintelligible). 

(Spencer):	Make sure you had an opportunity to weigh in on this since
– actually it was your comments that helped us, helped me put together
that language.

Man:	I think we had a discussion last time I thought. Because the term
Good Samaritan may have some legal connotations to some of the states
specifically around motor vehicle accidents and typically in most states
meant to protect nurses and doctors (unintelligible). 

	So I just hope we don’t get that confused with what the current state
laws are (unintelligible) Good Samaritan Act.

(Spencer):	I recall that discussion and my thought was that someone had
weighed in on it. Whether it was (Sara) or someone else that weighed in
on that saying that Good Samaritan was used so widely that it was not
– we could define it any way we wanted to without running up afoul
with any other standard.

Man:	Just wanted to (unintelligible).

(Spencer):	(Andy) is nodding his head instead of that verbal…

(Andy):	I think that was probably the one that last time and what I
would say Bill to get to your point. If we go forward with the rule
making there will be an explanation where we say this is how we are
using the term. We understand that it is used in other places. 

	This is not intended to interfere with or conflict with anything that
anybody else is doing in any of their state and local legislation.

(Spencer):	Thank you (Andy). (Spencer) again. So let’s take a look at
Page 31 then.

Man:	I am sorry (Spencer). With the definition I think if we are going
to keep a definition in here we should include something along the lines
of or at the scene because you have who is at the scene when it happens.

	They may arrive after it happens so I think we should include something
that says arrived at the scene before the arrival of the ESO.

Man:	Okay so you are saying a person who is at the scene of an incident
or who arrives before the ESO who is at the scene when it happens. 

Man:	I mean that is my thought on that. But may should I just –
everybody was okay with that. I should have kept my mouth shut.

Man:	Matt wants to weigh in. I can hear him. I can feel him.

Matt Tobia:	Do I have a big sign on my back today (unintelligible)?

Man:	We want to be clear but at the same time. So if we want to be clear
to differentiate between the Good Samaritan and SGB.

Man:	Okay (Pat) you had a comment? 

(Pat Morrison):	Yes I was saying I thought (Andy) (unintelligible)
clarify this or clean it up. But you are right. Bill is right. It is not
when it happens. It can be after it happens. So it is just a matter of,
you know, just fact. 

Man:	But I think I am sure fact so let’s; you know – the thing I’m
sure that OSHA will clean it up.

Woman:	I have a quick question; could you tell me if there’s aware of
determines you use in the regulatory text other than the definition?

Man:	That’s a great question, I think it’s actually used – I want
to say in paragraph N.

Woman:	N?

Man:	Page 31.

Man:	N, with – this is some guidance for the IC, right Bill?

Bill Hamilton:	Yes, we had a page seven and it was actually placed with
the coordinates.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	If I remember correctly if the.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	It’s not actually – it doesn’t actually look like it’s been
regulated much as in some of the discussion or explanatory stuff at this
point.

Woman:	Usually, I mean, usually we only put definitions that are
actually used with regulatory. I mean that doesn’t mean you can’t,
but.

Man:	So Bill, are you only finding this in the explanation?

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Okay.

Bill Hamilton:	Most – I mean – I guess as we’re going through and
especially as it goes through all the great work that the sub-group did,
we’ll see it pop up and we’ll see how it’s used and whether or not
we need to define it or add to it.

Man:	Okay.

Man:	So we do have references for spontaneous, unaffiliated volunteers
in several locations, who do we ask, you know, the SUB and the good
Samaritan together and us in those locations.

Man:	I’m sorry, I just remembered, one of the reasons – something I
added into – sorry – into the standard operating procedure section
– I put a placeholder because we had the use of good Samaritan –
good – use of SUVs and then we also had – then I also put a
placeholder for use of good Samaritan.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Page 30 – sorry – page 32.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	It’s on page 32, a placeholder where it would appear in red text
there if we decide to add something in there. Thank you Bill. Another
thing, so if you look on page 31, this is part of – I believe it’s
paragraph 10 if I remember right – and it’s the use of spontaneous,
unaffiliated volunteers and then also – and we just wanted to add a
little bit of language to the recommendation – or to the requirements
to the incident commander and it’s summarized right there in that last
paragraph on page 31, the incident commander IC is responsible for the
management and safety of spontaneous, unaffiliated volunteers to the
extent that the hierarchy is aware of their arrival on the scene, a
shuttle is provided – a planned managed SUV is including the
establishment of an assembly and registration area and the IC shall
assess the need for the SUV based on sight needs and SCD skills and
pre-incident training.

	And then adding this language, such as but not limited to the OSHA
Disaster Sight Worker training community emergency and response training
and Red Cross Disaster Response training or other NGO training. So I
just wanted to add in just some information because in conversations
with folks that have IC experience, many of them are not even aware that
– of the OSHA Disaster Sight Worker Outreach program, Disaster Sight
Worker training and so putting this in there is just a little bit of
information that they can be aware that that training is available and
they may have SUVs show up with that training.

(Lavon Parda):	(Spencer), I had – this is (Lavon Parda) – I have
just a question – in terms of distinguishing SUVs from Good
Samaritans, so would an SUV typically have some skillset that was really
relevant to the involvement versus a Good Samaritan who may not – who
just happened to be on the site or at the site even when it happened or
shortly thereafter?

(Spencer):	My understanding from our discussion and, you know, fire
fighters can chime in here, the difference between a Good Samaritan and
the SUV doesn’t – is not a training, the level of training. The
difference is that a Good Samaritan happens to be there when it happens
and the ICs do not want to have – to give them a site briefing while
they’re applying pressure to somebody who’s bleeding to death. So
the SUV is someone that is travelling in to provide assistance, whether
or not they have training or not is something the ICs do determine when
they get there, but they’re not – they’re not at the scene when it
happens – am I right about that (Pat) and Matt?

((Crosstalk))

(Spencer):	Is that what we said?

(Lavon Parda):	If I could further clarify my question, the SUV – would
the SUV have a specific skill that’s relevant to the response versus a
Samaritan is someone who just happens right? 

Matt Tobia:	So this – this is Matt Tobia – just a couple of things
to be aware of, Good Samaritans believe it or not, tend to have some
type – usually have some type of minimal training because they engage,
in other words, they, you know, if they see something going on they
engage and they have some knowledge of what to do as a general rule. The
issue with spontaneous volunteers is not whether or not they have
training, often times they have some level of training, the issue is
that they’re not integrating into – we’re not called to the scene,
we’re not dispatched to the scene, we’re requested to the scene,
they just saw that there was a major incident going on and thought it
would be a good idea to go to the call. 

	And the danger with that is that absolutely, positively critical that
they integrate into the organization of the effort to control the
incident, so they don’t potentially cause harm or injury and you see
that in any major disaster, there was an F5 tornado that went through
Oklahoma as they often do unfortunately, there was some major
destruction, the community – the fire chief said stop, don’t come
here unless I call for you. So it’s not – it isn’t necessarily
that an SUV doesn’t have the skillset, it’s how they got to the
incident and then what responsibility the incident commander has to
control and manage them to ensure the safety of all the workers on the
scene.

(Lavon Parda):	Okay, okay, thank you.

Man:	And just.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Yes, just to follow up on that, and just to give you an example and
the Web text that we’re going to hear from a little bit later today,
we did have a Dallas fire fighter that was a career fire fighter that
showed up at that scene and had reported, so that was somebody that had
the skills, that had some of the levels that you’re looking for in a
situation like that, but he died, you know, he was part of that
explosion, so that’s a little bit of what Matt was saying is that,
even that individual still has to go to the incident commander and in
those cases, and I would imagine that it would happen a little bit more
in the volunteer areas there, but they, you know, they really do need
some of those resources, usually they’re called upon to show up.

Man:	Thank you. (Grady)?

(Grady):	Yes, this is (Grady) – Bill was saying with that, I would ask
that you ask for clarification and I think these gentlemen did a good
job but if you look at page 32 at the top, and it’s continuing – it
starts under 31 under incident commander, but – and at the top there
the IC’s responsibility to provide us with that to ensure the safety,
I think that’s – I know as an IC sometimes that – and we may have
discussed this term or not, but that to ensure that safety for those
individuals, we all may have agreed to it, I don’t recall, you know,
is there another word we want to use, or I’ll go with the group, to me
that, you know, that’s saying a whole lot to ensure, I would maybe
suggest another term, but I’ll see what my colleagues here are
thinking of that. I’m not trying to beat this horse to death but since
we’re having this conversation here now.

Man:	Any thoughts about that?

Man:	Ensure is just to say the appropriate regards for the safety of
the, you know, instead of the, you know, I mean we.

((Crosstalk))

(Grady):	I’d go with that.

Man:	Okay, any thoughts about that? About that suggestion?

Man:	I have a suggestion – I have a question – so the IC is not only
going to do a safety – first of all, they’re going to decide whether
or not this person is going to be integrating into the response,
that’s the first question, if they are not, then they’re asked to
leave or get out of the hot zone or whatever, so I think – I think
really the IC is responsible to determine whether or not the SUV or Good
Samaritan is integrated into the response and if so, provide appropriate
safe guards.

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia – the other thing just in reading the
language because, you know, the good word meaning, I don’t know that
we want to make the incident commander – we want to hold the incident
commander responsible for actually doing these things.

Man:	Right.

Matt Tobia:	Or ensuring that these things causes these things to be
done.

Man:	Right.

Matt Tobia:	For example, if you are the incident commander and you’re
commanding a 9/11 style event, which will most assuredly have SUVs, you
don’t want the IAC, by this standard to have to step away from the IC
responsibilities to do the briefing.

Man:	Absolutely.

Matt Tobia:	I think it’s a matter of just cleaning up regulatory text
to ensure that this says that the IC shall ensure that these things are
current or shall cause these things to occur. That’s all I was going
to recommend.

Man:	Okay, (Ken)?

(Ken):	This is (Ken), language we use above that for the skill support
workers, might be appropriate under 10 III and 10 IV, addresses the same
thing for a different class of workers, maybe we should consider using
the same language there, just for making it flow, I don’t see a
difference between a skill support worker how we look at their safety or
somebody that comes in off the street that we decide to use. Basically
it’s the same person.

Man:	Okay, thoughts about that? 

Man:	If we use the word ensure in that particular statement in IV.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	So on page 31, 10 IV and 10 III.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Yes, Bill.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I have agreed with Matt on that because I think you don’t want
the incident commander to be tied up in this initial briefing, that’s
what I think your safety officers are for instead of the IC, usually the
safety officer is the one who is there, incident commander – so I
think we need to make it a little more general so that the incident
commander themselves are not tied up in a specific requirement to do a
briefing for the transition into the safety officer who is assigned –
or one of the other team members – who is assigned to the incident
command itself and I do believe that the incident command system –
correct me if I’m wrong Matt – but they all have a safety officer
assigned to them.

Matt Tobia:	They do, this is Matt Tobia – just in the NEMS world, the
individual I guess would actually fall under the planning section before
they would ever, you know, enter into the organization and I would just
leave it to the responsibility of the incident commander to ensure that
these things get done without prescribing who has to actually do it.

Man:	Okay.

Matt Tobia:	Because ultimately the incident commander is going to be
held accountable for any decisions made by the incident commander, so to
that end you could honestly ensure that it’s done and leave it at
that.

Man:	Okay, so we have – let’s see what we’ve got here.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	As a point of clarity, the indented paragraph says the incident –
this one here – and it’s in a different font than the rest of the
stuff – okay, all of these things that are discussed here in sentences
are here under 1 I, II and III, right? Use of spontaneous, unaffiliated
prior to participation of the SUVs, that’s the emergency incident, the
ESO shall ensure until the commander established assembly the
registration area, commander provides initial – again the ESO shall
ensure the incident commander provides initial briefing, etcetera
etcetera, and to the extent possibly until the commander restricts
participation by the SUV, so that is if you will, (Spencer)’s
paragraph here and my version of that converted into reg tech up here,
it does not have the OSHA and some of this other stuff. But essentially
what’s in that paragraph is in reg text here, does that make sense?

Man:	Yes.

((Crosstalk))

Matt Tobia:	Yes, and all – this is Matt Tobia – all I would
recommend would be that for example, can we go back to the reg text?
Okay, so for example, under 11, under 11I, I would simply say the
incident commander shall, you know, shall ensure the establishment of.

Man:	Sorry Matt, it works the other way around, look above that, the
ESO, right? Shall ensure that the incident commander establishes, right
– so the incident commander is still telling someone else to do it if
you will.

Matt Tobia:	That’s not what I read, the way I read it – the way I
read it is that it’s still required by the commander to actually,
physically do it. I mean, you’re right, the ESO does need to ensure
that that happens, I agree with you 100% Bill, I just – when you say
the incident commander provides an initial briefing, to me that –
maybe I’m reading it wrong – I could be completely wrong. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	So we would probably prefer to be written like this but then
explained that it’s not the incident commander doesn’t have to
actually do all of this, personally the whole point of the incident
command system is that somebody is directing a variety of activity and
that its – the point is that it gets done.

Man:	So maybe instead of saying incident commander establishes, because
you know the ESO has to ensure that, how about just saying that the
incident command, because that’s the system, command is the system. So
instead of saying commander which singles out the person, the
individual, why not say the incident command.

Man:	You need a person, there’s a person who’s responsible and
that’s the incident commander.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Could you say the incident commander or his delegate?

Woman:	Designee.

Man:	Yes, or delegate, you know, he’s delegating it to somebody else,
he’s not going to do these things.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	That’s what I want to make sure.

Man:	Or appropriately delegate.

Man:	That’s all I want to make sure is that we don’t over designate
and get high in the hand.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	With the expectations that they actually have to physically do
this.

Man:	Right.

Man:	That’s all I’m concerned about, it’s not important to me, the
language is great, I support it all, you know, it’s all good stuff, I
think it’s incredibly important to put this in there because we do get
run over by SUVs all the time on incidents of significance but I just
don’t want to tie the hands of the incident commander to make them
personally responsible for doing it. I mean if you think that you can
explain in a regulatory explanatory affect, great, yes, have it.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	But it’s got to be clear that we’re not trying to.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Absolutely. I don’t think the guy who’s running, you know,
unfortunately the next 9/11 is going to take a step away to go give a
briefing to new SUVs on the incident team when you’re running a
disaster of that magnitude. They – that is the whole point of the
system is that there is a structure and process that somebody is
controlling to accomplish this.

Man:	And I agree with you on the whole 9/11 situation, but on the other
smaller types of situations.

Man:	Yes.

Man:	What’s best for the support team.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	You know, those that are well established and I think you get the
one person who is tied up.

Man:	Right, well yes, I’m actually thinking more about the wild fires,
because we have every single year we have wild fire season and believe
it or not, the first time that I heard in recent memory I heard of an
incident commander in California last year actually call for SUVs.

Man:	Right.

Man:	Which I had never heard of in the history of the wild fires,
actually asking for help from untrained people.

Man:	Right, usually they break open the prisons first.

Man:	Correct, that’s exactly right.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Yes, Kathy.

((Crosstalk))

Kathy Robinson:	Thanks, (Kathy Robinson), I agree with a lot of things
that have been said, I think I agree most with is what Matt says, that
the IC shouldn’t be personally responsible for making sure that the
briefing gets done themselves, that it could be designated, but the
thing that I’m really confused about is – and I missed the
discussion how all this language got in there in the first place – but
if why a volunteer who may or may not be trained is contained within a
skilled support worker section, so that’s my first question, but the
other thing is, is it seems to me that a spontaneous, unaffiliated
volunteer is a Good Samaritan and a Good Samaritan is a spontaneous,
unaffiliated volunteer, and I understand the point that’s being made
about the time that they arrive on scene, I’m just – I’m unclear
about why there’s a need to distinguish them because of the time that
they got involved?

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Let me add something to what Kathy said, I see your point Kathy and
maybe the key distinction is that they’re all the same but the
question is you have SUVs or Good Samaritans up there before the
emergency support people or before the emergency responders arrive or
after and the real question is for the people that are there before, how
do you transition them from whatever Good Samaritan activity they were
doing into the command structure once its established versus, you know,
somebody – a command structure that’s already been established and
now bringing people in. So it’s kind of a transition period for the
people that are there before but then after that, Good Samaritans or
SUVs should still be functioning through whatever the command structure
is to bring them in to assist.

Kathy Robinson:	That makes sense, I just need to think about that a
little bit more.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Kathy, this is not in the support section there or we haven’t
even got to the skilled support section yet, but this was something that
we.

((Crosstalk))

Kathy Robinson:	I think it’s the post lunch thing.

Man:	That’s fine.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	No, that’s fine, I just wanted to point out that this is related
to the work that we’ve done but it’s not in the scope for exceptions
yet.

((Crosstalk))

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia – this is in the incident safety
section, so – and I think what (Andy) is saying is also just to
reinforce the idea of the Good Samaritan, I think we should go back to
the definition and just clean that up a little bit, that the definition
identifies that these are individuals who are engaged prior to the
establishment of command or prior to the – prior to the arrival of the
ESO, who may be there prior to the arrival of the ESO or rendering help,
controlling bleeding, doing whatever they’re doing until the arrival
of the ESO and then once the ESO is there they become responsible for
everything that happens and then those individuals do either leave the
scene or they become SUVs, you know, if they stay but what you’re
really – what I think you’re really trying to – what we’re
really trying to differentiate is there could be individuals who do
arrive prior to the ESO, who render aid, those are Good Samaritans,
okay, they’re over here, but inevitably what you see are these SUVs
and that’s a term that came out – actually it came out of the
National Fire Academy – as part of the national incident management
system language, that they actually are referring to – that they have
a specific term for them and that’s why they’re identified here in
this regulatory text.

Bill Hamilton:	And – Bill Hamilton – I owe (Spencer) an apology, the
11I, II and III was most of the points that is the additional paragraph,
there are some other things that came in a later version of – that he
sent me and that I did not – I did not convert into reg language, so
we’ll have a couple of other things on here that we’ll need to
consider and add in there.

(Ken):	(Lamar), this is (Ken), one of the terms we used when we’re
taking the burden off of any particular person, we just use or his
designee or their designee and it flows with the ICS system and you may
even establish in a big incident, you may have an SUV branch or
something like that where that’s all that director does is fully
qualify with SUVs, so they would become a designated person to handle
that by command. And in some instances, maybe command would handle if it
was a small enough incident. And I don’t know if that will help Matt
out with his heartburn over the – but it takes it directly off of IC.

Matt Tobia:	Yes, this is Matt Tobia, I’m fine with that, if they want
to say or designee that’s perfectly fine, I just – all I really
wanted to do is make sure that it’s being addressed in some way and
(Andy) spoke to the issue of explanatory text and that’s, you know,

Man:	Being real familiar with ICS, if I read it the way it’s written,
I would know that it’s not me, if I was an IC, but if somebody was
interpreting it for whatever reason, then they may say well, why
didn’t the IC themselves do that, when you put or their designee, that
just puts it where it belongs and you’ve appointed or saw to it that
it happened. 

Man:	I think – and (Grady), if I can – I remember we had a lot of
discussion, remember with the ESO, we wanted to make sure that ICS was
implemented, we spent a lot of time discussing that, you know, because
of our ESOs and their lack of training or their understanding of that
responsibility, so if I recall, we spent an awful lot of time discussing
that this would be implemented and then this is the part that’s kind
of sifted out through all of that, just to offer that.

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick, something that brings up again and I agree
when you all brought that up is in the event of an incident within an
incident, there’s some liability issues or there could be, and we need
to be pretty clear about this, so if an incident commander, if we left
the language as is and to speak to Matt’s point as well, if the
incident commander did not do what the standard says, what this document
says, and if it was not well qualifying, then there could be some
liability for that incident commander.

Man:	Okay, in an effort to move this forward, adding the language or
designee, is everybody good with that? Okay, so if we could do that I
think we could move forward. And thank you for your recommendation Matt.

Woman:	It’s one below that.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Okay, (Spencer).

(Spencer):	Hey, this is (Spencer), one other point of clarification is
there any discussion on including in this text somewhere the – just
the recognition of the OSHA training, disaster site worker training,
maybe the outreach program and the other community based training as –
just as an information piece for the IC that’s reading this?

Man:	Okay.

((Crosstalk))

(Andy):	If you were going to do that – this is (Andy) – if you were
going to do that you could just add it in the notes, that OSHA, you
know, page 400 does that?

(Spencer):	It was the 7600, it’s now just – it’s part of the
outreach training program.

(Andy):	Right, so you would just say, you know, this OSHA training class
meets, you know, would meet the requirements of.

Man:	Yes, that would be perfect.

Man:	Alright then, let’s move on to page.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I think (Lisa Delaney) has a comment or question.

(Lisa Delaney):	In section 10, just before the page, there’s another
example where we have incident commander providing training, that needs
to be fixed, 10I on page 30, there’s just one.

Man:	Okay, thank you. And (Spencer).

(Spencer):	Okay, so the skill support paragraph starts at the bottom of
page 32, and there’s a note there which I’m guessing that Bill put
in, spontaneous, unaffiliated volunteers are not employees of an SSE,
CN11.

Woman:	Excuse me?

(Spencer):	Yes.

Woman:	We don’t have the benefit of our transcriptionist, I think
it’s very important for you to speak up as loudly as possible.

(Spencer):	I’m sorry.

Woman:	Thank you.

Man:	The transcriptionist is actually on the telephone.

(Spencer):	I’m sorry.

Man:	Just speak into the microphone.

Woman:	Thank you so much.

(Spencer):	I thought I was close enough to the mic.

((Crosstalk))

(Spencer):	Okay, perfect. Put the paper in front here and then I’m
looking at the mic. Okay, so Bill did you have any – was there any
other comment that you had on that? On page 32?

Bill Hamilton:	With the note?

(Spencer):	Yes. Page 32, the paragraph Q, there’s just a note there.

Bill Hamilton:	Well okay, so.

(Spencer):	I don’t think our sub-committee – sub-group added that.

Bill Hamilton:	If you look on page 38, towards the bottom just above T,
spontaneous, unaffiliated volunteers are not employees of the NESS SC or
under the direction of the IC and so this is – I thought it was more
appropriate as a general comment – I think we talked about this – it
was more appropriate as a general comment and so instead of saying under
the direction of the IC, I actually sited the section where it is,
spontaneous – so it accomplishes the same thing that we had further
down, just moved up.

(Spencer):	Okay.

Bill Hamilton:	I don’t know – because it’s not an actual – to me
it seems like, I don’t know, it seems like it would be accomplished
with what you wanted and that’s all my thoughts on it. But I will
happily move it wherever you would like.

(Spencer):	No, that’s under the training paragraph and it was just
dealing with who trains the SUV and that the SUV is not under an SSE’s
responsibility to train, so therefore the IC has got to provide that
training. Alright, so then on to page 33, another addition I’m
guessing that Bill added in under – at the top of the page, SSE shall
only designate workers who the SSE determines are properly trained,
qualified and fit. Is that a suggestion that you had Bill?

Bill Hamilton:	Well, I very often try to dream up stuff – let’s see
– I believe that was in my notes from a discussion at the – I
didn’t bring all of my notes unfortunately – at the last meeting, I
thought that was one of the things that – I thought that was one of
the things that somebody said they should do.

(Spencer):	Are there any comments that anyone wants to add on including
this as it’s written?

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt Tobia, I support that. The III statement that
they’re making.

Man:	Yes.

Man:	The SSE shall only designate workers who – I would absolutely.

(Spencer):	Any other thoughts or comments about that? Okay, none then
we’ll go on to medical screening, Bill, you have a comment in here,
the rest of the doc – speaking of licensed health care professionals
as evaluating the screening document, that the rest of this document
uses the term qualified health care professional and you’d like to
know what a descript – would like to go with licensed health care
professional or qualified health care professional? Kathy?

Kathy Robinson:	I’d like to add a case for the term – (Kathy
Robinson) – I’d like to add the case of the term licensed, a medical
professional could be qualified but if they have – perhaps they have a
substance abuse disorder, they’re under criminal – have committed
some kind of criminal action, they still might be qualified to do a
screening but they are – they may not be licensed to do so. So I think
licensed is the better term.

(Spencer):	Okay, Matt Tobia, did you have a?

Matt Tobia:	Yes, this is Matt Tobia, we have a – I mean we have a
definition in our definition section about a qualified health care
professional, which speaks to licensure, professional qualifications or
certifications required to practice medicine in the ESO’s
jurisdiction. I don’t know if that addresses your concern Kathy, but I
was going to advocate for using the term qualified health care
professional because of that definition but.

Man:	Yes, that’s on page 6 that you’re referring to.

Kathy Robinson:	Thank you.

(Spencer):	Kathy, do you have any – is that okay? Does that meet your
suggestion?

Kathy Robinson:	Yes.

(Spencer):	Okay.

Kathy Robinson:	Thank you.

(Spencer):	Any other thoughts about medical screening, III? Okay, moving
down to C on that same page, it was recommended to delete this, the
language and replace language from the DOT Federal Motor carrier’s
safety regulation language and I’m not exactly sure Bill, what you
were – this comment you were asking about, could you clarify it for
us?

((Crosstalk))

(Spencer):	It’s the note on paragraph C, right there. I think we were
okay with deleting or we could say acute progressive or recurrent
disease or condition, I think everyone was okay with that, but I’m not
sure what your comment was.

Bill Hamilton:	It was a suggestion at the last meeting that we replace
the parenthesis with some language from the DOT Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulation.

(Spencer):	Okay.

((Crosstalk))

Bill Hamilton:	And I don’t have that.

Man:	Okay, and Bill, I saw this note and I actually, yes I actually
brought a copy of it just kind of – and, you know, one of the things I
– as I’ve looked through, this is under 391-41, physical
qualifications for drivers, I think under 3 of this particular
regulation, it says a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if
– so I don’t know if that was the kind of language that you were
considering that a person is physically qualified to where we – I
guess to perform whatever functions, I don’t know if that was the kind
of language that you were looking for but I do have a hard copy of that,
just kind of – you can take a look at this.

Bill Hamilton:	Okay.

(Spencer):	Okay, any other comments or?

((Crosstalk))

Man:	So under E it says the workers (unintelligible) that could limit
performance, so (Andy) is that general enough just because there’s, I
mean, that really will limit a lot of these special employees that we
review, the tow truck drivers, those kind of things that will come as a
significantly limit their use and their utilization. So my concern is
are we going to – is that so limiting?

(Andy):	This is (Andy) – I need to think about that more.

((Crosstalk))

(Andy):	I think you want to have something where you say that these
people are capable – medically capable.

Man:	Right.

(Andy):	But they may have something – right, but if that something is
of enough concern that they shouldn’t be operating a vehicle under an
emergency scene, that’s usually a pretty significant concern.

Man:	But unless it’s over 26,001 pound, you know, that’s the regular
tow truck driver, you know, doesn’t have to have that in many cases.

Man:	Yes, actually just to kind of clarify that DOT rule, it’s 10,001,
that triggers the medical.

Man:	Right.

Man:	Yes.

Man:	But even if you have someone who doesn’t – let’s say they are
epileptic and you want to send them to emergency teams where you’ve
got flashing lights, I’m saying what if they are blind in one eye.

Man:	Yes.

Man:	Under the DOT rules that could disqualify them under a DOT
standard. But again, in this emergency situation it may not because they
still could utilize that piece of equipment, those are the kind of
things I’m looking at.

Man:	That makes me really, like that example for example, a lack of –
do you want somebody operating a piece of equipment perhaps in close
proximity to emergency responders with problems like that?

((Crosstalk))

Woman:	There’s a significant body of law out about the ability to
perform essential job functions without causing a threat of harm to
direct physical harm to other persons who might be in that area, that
would allow us to, you know, borrow from that law. It’s the language
that comes out of the American Disability Act, so it’s constantly
looking at, you know, what point are you able to do something, when are
you unable to do something? So that might provide you with some
additional language.

Man:	Right.

Woman:	We’ve used another standard and we’ve just got some other
preambles before.

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick – I do think that this is pretty decent
language here, the only thing that I would be concerned about is the
phrase could cause the appearance of symptoms or complications, and I
don’t know how in the world anybody is going to quantify that, I think
it would be simpler if we left that part out, that could limit
performance or duties that could endanger the safety of the worker –
of the worker or others and the appropriate PPE, I don’t know about
the – could cause the appearance of symptoms of complications – I
don’t know if Kathy, you might speak to that or not.

Matt Tobia:	Could I – this is Matt Tobia, could I just offer the
worker shall not have any medical conditions that could interfere with
their – that could interfere with the performance of their duties in a
way that endangers the safety of the worker or others or prohibits the
wearing of appropriate PPE.

Man:	That sounds more realistic to me.

Man:	Okay, anybody else would like to weigh in on that? Bill, Warren?

Man:	So Matt instead of that, what if we just delete the word any, so
would that make that more restrictive (Andy)? So we would say the
workers shall not have medical conditions that could limit?

Man:	I think we’re parsing things really finely right now and I
don’t think whether any is there or not, you know, I think both of
them have the same effect and intent.

Man:	Okay, any other thoughts about that? So yes, (Phillip).

(Phillip):	So what about the volunteer guy who I think I was talking to
one of my colleagues this morning and it’s a 70-year-old volunteer,
I’m sure there’s medical conditions on some of those folks that
might be engaged in working there on this skill set, but it just seems
like how do we manage limiting that? How do we manage limiting that, you
know, to this section right here? The medical screenings, so.

Man:	I have a comment, that could limit performance of duty, you just
don’t give him those duties that could be limited.

Man:	Right.

Man:	That makes sense to me at least.

Man:	Yes, that makes sense to me too.

Man:	So there was a suggestion that we – I’m looking – oh yes,
that we delete a few words out of C to just say, was that you Matt, that
made the suggestion?

Matt Tobia:	I think Rick actually had the idea of causing the appearance
of symptoms or complications – it would not be easily defined and so I
think we took that language out.

Man:	Okay, everyone good with that?

Man:	So how far would you go Matt? Would cause the appearance of
symptoms of complications?

Matt Tobia:	Yes, that’s what – if you look at the screen, the
revised language which is on the screen now, it just says the worker
shall not have any medical conditions that could interfere with the
performance of duties, that could endanger the safety of the worker or
others or prohibit the wearing of appropriate PPE.

Man:	Can we say or in their limited performance of duties or that could
endanger the safety of workers? Or would that be appropriate?

Man:	Yes, it should be.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Or endanger the safety.

Man:	Okay.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Okay, (Spencer), we’re on to page 34 and we’re going to get
into the rather large section on fatigue management and my colleague
(Lisa) and Kathy are going to.

Man:	Yes, again, can you speak into the mic please.

Man:	Am I speaking into the mic?

Man:	Yes, it’s not really – we can – I can hardly hear you.

((Crosstalk))

(Spencer):	Okay, we’re on to fatigue management and on page 34, my
colleagues (Lisa) and Kathy who did the yeoman’s work here putting
this together are going to lead this discussion. So Kathy or (Lisa), if
you want to take the mic first.

(Lisa Delaney):	(Lisa Delaney), so when we were drafting this section we
drew heavily from some reference guidance – or reference documents
primarily the National Response Team Technical Assistance document as
well as ACOM, the American College of Occupational and Environmental
Management and the guidance – and both of those guides are more
performance based standards so we tried to strike a balance of not being
too prescriptive with this because we do know that we can’t prescribe
completely, people are going to do what they’re going to do on the off
hours and so I think when we were developing the language we tried to be
careful of how we worded that on giving time off for sleep and focusing
on more of a management pool of training and education. So I think
that’s really what drives the language that we have here.

Kathy Robinson:		(Kathy Robinson), I don’t have anything to add, I
think (Lisa) described that very concisely. 

(Lisa Delaney):	So I guess we can go line by line, this first section we
talk about developing and implementing a fatigue management plan, and
then we go into what elements would be included in that plan, having a
policy and designating rules and responsibilities and then developing
education, awareness training and I think we include, you know, what
elements would be included in that training, what are the factors
associated with emergency operations being performed, recognition of the
fact that fatigue – and then the next section we talk about an
important component isn’t just recognizing it, it’s actually
addressing it with mitigation strategies and so then we have –
that’s where we get into more details about establishing shift length
although we don’t go into saying exactly what those shift lengths are.


	But we do talk about giving some examples and this is what Kathy
provided, so I don’t know if you want to say anything more about that.

Kathy Robinson:		Well this language actually came from an ACOM document
and we had a discussion about whether or not you can prescribe sleep,
but we could offer that providing time so that people can sleep is very
important and that’s – we didn’t make these times up or this
language up, we basically just modified it from the ACOM reference which
is an evidence based paper.

(Lisa Delaney):	So part of the mitigation strategies of – in those
following bullets that are from – into page 34 and the top of page 35
– then the next section D talks about monitoring and recording worker
fatigue and instant investigation, so that’s sort of making sure that
there – the policies and the programs and the plan that you put into
place is actually happening and then you’re able to identify and make
corrections if you identify problems and that’s one of the tenants in
the ACOM document as well. And that’s D and E, assessing and the
effectiveness of controls.

Man:	Okay, are there any comments to this point, (Spencer)?

(Spencer):	Yes, I have just a question on – under paragraph C, the
first two bullet points, could you just provide a little more
information as to what distinguishes those two? They both seem to be
saying the same thing to me, or something similar except that one says
eight hours’ continuous sleep and the other says ten hours of rest and
sleep.

(Lisa Delaney):	Those are Kathy’s bullets.

Kathy Robinson:		Yes, the document actually refers to a range of eight
to ten hours and I think that was just an oversight that I didn’t use
consistent number, but that was recommendations from the ACOM document.
As far as distinguishing between the two, let me just brief here a
second, I’m amenable to merging those two points, I think one is
really intended to talk about providing an opportunity for continuous
sleep and that’s one of the caveats of all the guidance that we read,
was not that it should be obtained in blocks of time, but in a
continuous duration. And then the suggestions that maximum work shift
duration should be addressed, but again, I think that it’s reasonable
to merge those.

Man:	Okay, any other thoughts or comments to this point?

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Oh sorry, (Spencer).

(Spencer):	Yes, this is (Spencer), just wondering again of our fire
fighter community, if you guys that have been ICs before, at our last
meeting there was some question about whether or not, you know, you can
use an SUV adequately if you have to give them time off, you know, like
ten hours of time off, that might be something that might be too much,
do you guys have any feeling about this one way or the other? Is this
language going to be okay?

Man:	That’s fine, yes, (Spencer), it’s going to be the situation,
it’s almost as if depending upon what is necessary at the scene at the
time, we’re not going to be monitoring time and saying that now it’s
time for you to leave for the ten hours off, I mean it’s going to be,
you know, normally it’s a disaster and in most cases it’s going to
be large scale events where we’re there doing the job, you know,
until, you know, if we have adequate – we do rotate personnel in, we
do do rehab, we allow them breaks but we don’t define it as these
hours in a situation. And I understand where it came from but I –
it’s not appropriate in this – it’s not a perfect world when
you’re on a scene like this, so it’s – you’re really struggling
just to get them the amount of emergency work that you have to get done
in order to get whatever it is. It’s, you know, life rescue, it’s,
you know, trying to get ahead of the call so I don’t know if you have
anything else on this Matt.

Man:	Yes, question, I noticed in C we’re saying implementation of
controls and mitigation strategies that will be used to manage worker
fatigue rather than shall, is that in there on purpose for that reason?
Speaking to (Pat)’s comment.

Man:	Normally we have been using shall.

Woman:	It’s probably a person who sometimes is providing interim
guidance that is not enforceable. 

Man:	So in OSHA’s world you would typically use shall instead of will?

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Okay.

Man:	To address the comment that I think Bill you put here, but not
limited to, for C, including but not limited to, any thoughts – is
that okay with everyone?

Man:	That’s okay.

Man:	Okay. Any other comments – we got up to.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Yes.

Man:	Just for the sake of being the same throughout the document,
there’s several places in this section here where it says that SSE or
SSW will pass along to incident command, I think just to make it the
same as the rest we should put or designee, there’s a couple of places
in there, the SSE is one case, the SSE shall coordinate with IC, the SSE
shall, you know, any place like that maybe word smithing and just go
back through the document Bill, when you get a chance and if we’re in
agreement put or designee unless it changes something significantly
because it would read the same throughout the whole document. And the
one in particular I was mentioning was the E II, going back to what Matt
was saying.

Man:	Let me ask a question about that, would this communication of
coordinating with the SSE shall coordinate with the IC and communicate
the fatigue management plan, would this be something that would happen
prior to an incident or during a response? Or both?

Man:	I think both, because you would have a pre-plan with your SSEs
about, you know, long – prolonged events, you know, some of this
language I think is taking to out of the normal shiftwork, right? Just
the normal five, you know, eight EMS.

Kathy Robinson:		There actually has been a lot of research done on
emergency response workers, you know, fire fighters and EMS workers and
a lot of that is really coming – is getting published pretty much as
this work is – excuse me – evolving and I think that there’s some
sufficient science to justify a prescribed worker’s rest/sleep break
and I think the point is well taken that a disaster scene is a time when
workers need to get things done, but I just don’t think it should be
at the expense of bad judgement because someone is fatigued.

Man:	Bill, I have one other question, sorry, now the focus of this is
SSEs and SSWs, in terms of it – I – what made me think about this is
a comment that Kathy just made, with the incident commander, is there
– would they be incorporated into this fatigue management plan? 
Because they’re the ones that will be calling some shots and being
fatigued and having to make some high level decisions, I would think
they would want to be properly rested. I just – the fire fighters in
particular, just wondering.

Man:	What happens a lot is we bring in an IT team if the events is going
to be stretching out for a while they bring in a team to support the
initial incident management team and they are as well trained teams that
are available throughout, I know during Katrina we started seeing the
fatigue in certain areas, they started bringing in teams to support the
people you’re talking about as well because they were suffering from
the same thing.

(Andy):	Yes, so this is (Andy), I’ve got two points, number one is
we’ve already gotten there, that the scope supported employer shall
coordinate with the incident commander and communicate the fatigue
management plan. So you will have a different view of people who are
doing the manual labor, breaking up concrete and physically hauling it
away versus somebody who’s operating a bucket truck versus somebody
who is doing some other type of operation. All of them may have
different fatigue management plans based on the nature and duty of the
work that they’re doing. The other thing that I want to point out here
is that while the incident commander has responsibility for the scene,
part of the reason that we have this whole section is this is a
multi-employer operation and that skilled support employer has
responsibility for their skilled support workers, they do have a
responsibility to integrate and talk with the other employers, the fire
department and the incident commander on the scene, but, you know, these
skilled support workers work for that skilled support employer.

Man:	Okay, Bill.

(Andy):	And let me tell you, and the point of that is the skilled
support employer knows the duties and functions of his people better
because they’ve worked with and know the rest and work cycles for
their employees.

Man:	Okay, thank you for that clarification (Andy) and Bill, you had –
you were about to make a comment.

Bill Hamilton:	I was going to – yes, I was going to reply to (Ken)
about the indication of – we should say or designee after SSE.

Man:	The SSE shall coordinate with the IC, or designee.

Bill Hamilton:	Is that what you?

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I think it just flows through the rest of the document, for the
reason that Matt didn’t want command tied up getting a report from
SSE, when you probably have a branch director handling that in a full
scale event.

Man:	Okay, okay so (Lisa), are we back with you to – I think there a
few – we didn’t get to D I guess, or E, we stopped at E I think in
page 35.

Woman:	Can I just make one comment before we get to that one – this is
based on (Ken) and that – what (Andy) was implying before was in the
explanation of terms we’ve explained that an SSE includes the designee
just like we can for incident commander, if we take this to its full
extreme we’ll have every sentence say the SSE or designee shall
coordinate with IC, and/or designee – I’m just wondering if, you
know, you want to consider having that many uses of the word designee or
whether you’d like to try to capture all at one time in your preamble
as a question, not a comment.

Man:	Also the one on the – I noticed OSHA putting a note below, can
there not be a note below that kind of defines that more than that’s
including of a designee?

Woman:	As (Andy) explained, there are so many different ways you can do
and we’ve done it all, in a preamble, in a definition, in a reg text,
you know, I guess it was sort of like did you want to think about many
times you use those words as the reg text or do you want to think about
trying to function through a different vehicle, that’s all. And I
don’t care which way you want to do it, certainly putting it in the
text is very clear.

Woman:	I guess my question would be what is OSHA’s experience in the
past if you have it in the preamble do people skip over that and then
they lose the value – I like to streamline, so I guess in general
I’d be in favor of just having it described once and we don’t have
to keep adding or designee, but.

(Andy):	Yes, so this is (Andy), so in general we try and keep things as
streamlined as possible and then there’s guidance that comes out with
it when – if we again, if we’re turning forward several steps and we
want to forward to a rule making, this would be explained in the summary
and explanation that we don’t just think that the incident commander
is doing everything themselves, that there will be designees and
that’s the whole point of the system is that there’s a branch of –
a branch in control and you deal with that through interpretation and
there’s all sorts of other ways that it is made clear because if you
do or designee as (Sara) pointed out, you probably just added 500 words
to the thing.

((Crosstalk))

(Andy):	No, I’m serious, by the time you look at each place, you have
something and you say or their designee, I just don’t think – I
think we clearly understand your intent in the event that we go forward
with rule making, I think, you know, our intent is to honor this as much
as possible and then we will clean up with lawyers, you know, to make
sure that things fit the normal – so I don’t think it’s worth
spending the time on this, I think it’s clear or designee is the
intent.

(Ken):	And there’s – this is (Ken) – the proper place for that
(Andy) might be under incident management, the statement there in that
section, might clarify it for everybody but also make it simpler, but
still accomplish it, that might be a good spot.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Okay, thank you (Ken), (Sara), (Andy). So (Lisa).

(Lisa Delaney):	Just finishing off with fatigue, the elements of the
fatigue management program that we described here, it would also include
D and E which is the system for monitoring and reporting worker fatigue
and incident investigation and then E, assessing the effectiveness of
the controls in mitigating worker fatigue and again, we talk about the
SSE coordinating with the IC and communicating the plan. And we also end
it by saying that the context of which the program should be implemented
and we have demands of the site, you know, require the longer work
hours, we have this in here about weather extremes, I would suggest that
we delete it, I didn’t really come across that in anything we read.

Kathy Robinson:		You know, actually the reason that got moved down there
is because in the original draft of that it was up in – up at the very
top of the document and I just moved it down there and under D we say
temperature extremes and I guess I would defer to those with greater
experience in that regard, how you define weather extremes or what –
if there is language in the science about that being a factor that
causes fatigue. 

(Lisa Delaney):	So I would recommend that we delete that, that sentence
B. So the other condition we would recommend a plan or a physical nature
of the work is more demanding than normal and lastly, a lot of other
risk factors sort of a long list of other conditions including long work
hours, rotating shifts, lack of – or limited breaks, etcetera would be
a condition that would require the implementation of a program. I think
at one point we had it earlier in the document, from an organization
standpoint does it make sense to leave it here at the end or should that
be moved earlier in the document?

Man:	Okay, any thoughts about that? About this last comment that (Lisa)
made? About moving D to 3ID to higher up in the document? Great, so.

(Lisa Delaney):	I think, you know, the more I think about it, I’m okay
with it being left where it is because you’ve got to make the decision
of what – you’re going to have that plan and a lot of its going to
written in advance and so a decision of whether you need to implement
the plan, that comes later and based on the criteria that we’ve
presented here at the end so.

Man:	Okay, (Lisa) and Kathy, I have a question about D on 35, a system
for monitoring or reporting worker fatigue and incident investigation
when it may be due to fatigue, are we talking about incidents that may
have an accident or something that happened on site and it could be
attributed to fatigue? Is that what you’re getting to here? I’ll ask
you to clarify – explain that to me.

(Lisa Delaney):	Yes, there’s actually a tool that’s provided in the
ACOM guidance that is a line of questioning to help investigate whether
that accident is fatigue related, so it sort of helps to try and
identify the control risk factors that were present that were related to
fatigue, I think it was – and we’re not saying you have to
investigate, you know, every incident that happens on scene, but only if
it – with the idea of it being a fatigue investigation, but only if
you think that it’s due to fatigue. I don’t know if that’s –
I’m not explaining that.

Woman:	I think it’s part of the fatigue risk management plan.

(Lisa Delaney):	Yes.

Man:	Okay, so this is just if an incident occurs while – during a
response procedure than there would be some type of investigation.

Woman:	Yes, well yes, I think that is accurate, again, this wasn’t
meant to be a stand -alone statement, it was meant to be something in
consideration of the fatigue risk management plan.

Man:	Oh, okay, I understand. 

Man:	Are there any thoughts or comments about D or E? The risk
management – in fatigue management? Okay, hearing none.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Sorry, but I would maybe considering moving D to the end because
that would be post, more post incident especially incident investigation
portion.

Woman:	I think that’s a reasonable suggestion.

Man:	Any other thoughts or comments about that suggestion? Okay,
(Spencer).

(Spencer):	I’m sorry, we want to move.

((Crosstalk))

(Spencer):	Right? 3ID to the end?

Man:	Correct.

(Spencer):	Which would.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	So essentially you just want to switch D and E?

Man:	3ID.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	If I move it to the end I just put it under E.

Man:	Yes, so you just want to switch.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I guess I need to know what the end is.

Man:	I think what Kathy was suggesting is that goes to end of the
section altogether.

Kathy Robinson:		Yes.

Man:	And that it could be a stand-alone I23, it would be I-B. Instead of
being a sub-section it would be its own.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	But isn’t that – I is adopt or develop and implement a fatigue
management plan, isn’t it a part of the plan? 

Man:	Yes, you’re right.

(Spencer):	This is (Spencer), there are a lot of different ways it’s
numbered – this section is numbered, you’ve got paragraph 3 is
fatigue management and then it should go Roman numeral I, A, B, C, D, E
and then it goes to Roman numeral II, Roman numeral III, so then D would
have to be Roman numeral IV, am I right about that Bill? If you’re –
you’re taking out – you’re taking it out of being underneath the
fatigue risk management plan, the development of the plan and you’re
moving it into its own item, am I right about that?

Man:	It would really – it doesn’t matter – it would – you are
right but it really doesn’t matter whether or not we want to move it. 

Man:	But another problem I have – oh I see okay, right.

Man;	We’ve got bullet points and A, B, C and it just needs a little
reformatting.

Man:	Yes.

Man:	Simple reformatting.

Man:	Okay.

Man:	Okay, Bill, are you clear on what needs to happen in terms of
reformatting?

Kathy Robinson:		I just want to – (Kathy Robinson) – compliment Bill
for his ability to turn this around in literally a couple of days in
anticipation of this meeting, so I think the formatting is a bit of
challenge, I don’t know that it was appropriate to use bullets as
opposed to a letter or numerical reference, and I support whatever
formatting needs he needs to do after this discussion to take care of
that.

Man:	Okay, the bullets are just a copy and paste.

Kathy Robinson:		Right, that’s correct.

Man:	Yes, we’ll get it – we have more important things than
formatting.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	We’ll get the formatting for sure as we go along.

Man:	Okay, great, thank you Bill. So (Spencer), I guess we’ve gotten
to – unless there is more questions about fatigue management? Yes,
(Lisa).

(Lisa Delaney):	I think have one reorg suggestion as well, I think if
you are – you need to make the decision you’re going to implement
the program before you – well I guess it depends on how you look at
that double II – the SSE shall coordinate with the IC and communicate
the fatigue management plan – are we envisioning that to be in advance
or during the response? If it’s during the response then I think it
needs to go last because you need to make the decision to have – to
implement the program before you’re going to be communicating it in
incident command. But if it’s a conversation that you’re going to be
having in advance then maybe it’s fine to leave it there.

Man:	I think we had addressed that some and said what would happen.

(Lisa Delaney):	Both ways.

Man:	Both ways, yes.

(Lisa Delaney):	Do we need to clarify that then in the statement to say
implement – coordinate with the IC in advance and during or is it
better just to be silent?

Man:	If I recall, (Pat), you had mentioned something about it being part
of pre-incident planning, addressing the long work – the long hours
issues.

(Pat):	Yes, I think you have to, I mean I think this is going to be a
significant – and if you have a, you know, a plan in place – a
fatigue plan in place – that can be talked about. Now how do you
manage that is going to be different, you know, in the actual incident
when it comes up, but I think it’s in the pre-planning. Because an
incident commander would need to know that’s going to be part of the
use of those skilled support workers but there’s going to be a fatigue
management plan involved in that. We don’t call it that, I guess we
call it rehab in a lot of cases for us, I mean we have that – Matt and
I have been talking, you know, some of this has to be maybe infused in
even the fire side because this is – this is a lot going on right now,
I agree, there’s a lot of research going on, most of the research is
coming from DOT, not necessarily from – DOT and hospital workers I
think – the latest are from EMS workers right now showing they’ve
done some, but for us, we have a 24-hour work shift that we work and
there’s a lot of talk about, you know, increasing that to 48 hours,
even to 96 hours in some jurisdictions, a fire fighter actually works 96
hours straight at the station. And you have to have a fatigue, you know,
sort of management plan there.

	But you still have to do your emergency calls when they come, that
doesn’t supersede that, so I think it’s pre-plan and then I think
it’s actually events and during the event that has to be managed.

Man:	Okay, thank you. So (Lisa), Kathy.

Woman:	No, I was just going to say I think taking a shift length alone
and isolation is fraught with risk, it really is a consideration of the
length of shift and time of the day that the shift occurs, the workload
that the folks are encountering, so one factor alone is not a criteria
to base a decision on but a range of factors which might include –
would include shift length but also workload and those sorts of things.

Man:	Okay. So (Lisa), getting back to your suggestion, under 2, the SSE
shall coordinate with the IC and communicate those fatigue management
plans, but if we go to 3, or, you know, 3I, the SSE shall implement the
fatigue management plan when and if there are these conditions, does
that trigger when the plan has to be implemented? I was wondering if
that’s addressed – if it’s already there unless I’m not
understanding the issue.

(Lisa Delaney):	I guess I’m okay with just leaving it as is and not
giving – not making it overly complicated, but I would suggest that we
change – that we use the same terminology throughout, we’re sort of
interchanging plan and program, so we want to just stick with plan, so
with III we should – instead of saying fatigue management program, we
should say fatigue management plan.

Man:	Okay, we’re good with that? For the sake of consistency? Yes,
change program to plan, okay so that’s done. So barring any other
comments or questions about fatigue management plans, (Spencer), I guess
back with you.

(Spencer):	Okay, thank you. This is (Spencer) again, onto page 36, at
our last session we were talking about decontamination and we just had
– I believe it was just one sentence about decon and the request was
that we flush that out a little bit as to what decon means or what we
mean by decontamination, so we took some language from another standard
and cut and pasted it in here and I went through and tweaked it a little
bit so that it was more appropriate for what we’re talking about here,
but you can just take a look at it and see if we’ve got a general
comment there to prevent the spread of contaminants and disease related
exposures, SSEs shall in coordination with the ESO develop procedures
for decon and what those decon procedures include are under Roman
numeral II, decon procedures and they – AA through D talk about the
fact that it should be developed before exposure, B is minimize contact
with the hazards, C is that before leaving the contaminated area the
SSWs shall be decontaminated and D is the procedures themselves shall be
monitored by the ESO and ESSE and the SSE to determine their
effectiveness.

	So those four things comprise the procedures, then it goes on to Roman
numeral – what should be Roman numeral III, and again, I cut and
pasted this so what is number 3 should be Roman numeral III. The
location should be set up so it minimizes contamination of other SSWs,
Roman numeral IV would be equipment and solvents shall be appropriately
disposed of. Five is the PPE and A and B talk about decontaminating the
PPE, I would suggest under B that we change non-impermeable, which is a
double negative, to just permeable then six, unauthorized employees
shall not remove protective clothing or equipment from site, seven is
commercial laundries have to be notified of any contaminated clothing
that is going to be cleaned by the commercial laundry.

	And eight is the shower rooms and change rooms should be provided. Are
there any questions or issues with the decon – suggested decon
language?

Man:	(Spencer), Roman numeral IV, which is currently just the number 5,
item B is remove that clothing and proceed to shower, maybe we change
shower to decon because decon may or may not include a shower, it may
have other methods.

(Spencer):	Yes, excellent.

Man:	You know, if you’re okay with that.

(Spencer):	Excellent.

(Lisa Delaney):	This is (Lisa Delaney), the impermeable, we kind of when
down that road during Ebola and I just find that sort of a complicated
term to use, I don’t have to think about, but I think I need to word
smith this a little bit, I mean I think the intent is if someone is
grossly contaminated and then is not wearing adequate PPE, you want them
to get to decon or showering, but I just feel like it could be worded in
a different way, but I don’t have an immediate recommendation for how
that can be written up, I need to think about it. I mean, is that what
you’re saying, I mean, you’re getting out of someone’s exposure
but they’re not wearing the appropriate PPE and there’s a potential
for thermal exposure and.

(Spencer):	Right, I think that’s with the original text was talking
about, my assumption is that because some PPE like level A suit is
impermeable, that the – that term became commonly used in reference to
level A suits, certain level A suits, so then when they came to this if
they’re not wearing level A suit, then they would be wearing a
non-impermeable, which – so, it just seems a double negative, you
know, it’s harder to understand than just simply stating that
they’re wearing something that is a liquid can soak through. Or a
substance can soak through.

Man:	Okay, so (Lisa), you said you’ll take a crack at trying to come
up with word smithing that a little bit, okay? Are there any other
comments or thoughts about this section on decontamination? Okay so
moving on then to paragraph R.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	(Spencer), let’s – we’ve been at it about a good hour and a
half or so, could we take about – what do we want to do? About fifteen
minutes – take about fifteen-minute break, let’s reconvene.

Woman:	Have you implemented the fatigue management program?

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I guess the short answer would be yes.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Okay. We’re going to start on the Section R. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Yes. If I can get everybody’s attention, we’ll start on Section
R now. (Spencer), would you go ahead and start on the PPE portion? 

(Spencer):	Yes, sir. Thank you. This is (Spencer) again looking at
Paragraph R on PPE. I think for the most part, the rest of what we’re
going to talk about is just some minor changes. Did somebody laugh?
Okay. (Unintelligible) the addition of language and roman numeral 1,
conduct a PPE hazard assessment as opposed to risk assessment and in
accordance with 1910.132 and 134. And then that same language is used in
roman numeral 2. 

	And down in third (unintelligible) S under training, we just made some
small changes changing the word must to shall. Over on page 38, right at
the top of the page, letter A, I’d like to - we added confined space
but I would also like to add to that confined space awareness training
or awareness level training or something like that, so that we don’t
suggest that they have to complete confined space training. 

	Is there anyone that wants to weigh in on that, as to whether or not
that would be a good idea? It’s just under paragraph S under training
and letter A is the disaster emergency safety and health hazard
recognition, including but not limited to (fatigue), heat and cold,
struck by motor vehicle accidents and it says confined space. But we
should - I would like to specify that’s awareness level training. Does
that make sense to everybody? Anybody have a question about that? Okay. 

	Bill, did you have a question? Bill? 

Bill Warren:	No. 

(Spencer):	Okay. 

Bill Warren:	Well it’s - disaster emergency site, (fatigue) health
hazard recognition, confined space awareness. I guess. I don’t know.
All right. Sorry. 

(Spencer):	And under letter B I think we probably should spell out APR
respirator as (unintelligible) respirators and then just use APR after
that. Maybe that’s just some wordsmithing there. I don’t know if…

Man:	That’s a good match. Just on that, just to that point, I would
say including training use and limitation - on the use and limitations
of respirators in accordance with 1910.134 or whatever the appropriate
standard is, instead of getting specific about only APRs. I would say
just respirators in general or in accordance with OSHA regulations. 

(Spencer):	Okay. 

Man:	(Unintelligible). (Spencer), I apologize for interrupting. Back up
to - just trying to digest that. So we’re back - the 38 was A, kind of
with reading that and what to add to the other. There seems to be a lot
into that one statement, right there, and makes some different things.
Maybe trying to give Bill a break there. I know you were trying to
digest it too, I think Bill. 

	If I can just (unintelligible) here a minute. I’d like this - maybe -
maybe everybody is okay with it. But does that (unintelligible)
recognition, including but not limited to fatigue, heat and cold stress,
(unintelligible) confined space awareness. Can we condense that a little
bit, or - it doesn’t read well to me. I don’t know. Maybe it’s
just late in the day and I’m fatigued myself. 

((Crosstalk))

(Spencer):	It’s a list of items that if I remember correctly, were
important. And for (unintelligible) fatigue and heat and cold stress.
Someone else wanted the motor vehicle struck by issue, and then someone
else wanted confined space in there. It’s just - it’s a
representative list of the types of things that could be included in the
hazard recognition training for SSWs. 

Man:	I mean to me sometimes like when I’m preparing a site safety
plan, I’ve got all of these things in there. And maybe that’s where
we are. We’re trying for people that again, that are not that
knowledgeable with it and for things to consider for a site safety plan.
Maybe that’s why I’m locked up on it, where it’s already starting
to close specific to that. 

(Spencer):	You’ll recall (Grady) that this is training that SSEs are
required to give to their workers prior to dispatching them. And this is
just a representative list of the types of things that the employer is
supposed to provide to their workers. So in IT you wouldn’t
necessarily get involved in where their - you just want to know whether
or not the workers had the training before you dispatched them out to a
site. 

Matt Tobia:	This is Matt. Could you consider - I’m just offering,
disaster/emergency site safety and health hazard recognition that the
SSE could reasonably believe it might encounter? And just get rid of the
(unintelligible)? That’s just a suggestion. Because I think it puts it
back on the SSE to identify those categories of things that they might
reasonably think that their employees could be exposed to on an
(unintelligible) that they could be dispatched in. 

(Spencer):	If I recall correctly, in the - earlier there was some
reference to SSEs determining what level of service that they would
provide and that they would have to write out in writing what they were
going to provide. And that everything flowed from that - the training
and everything flowed from the level. Am I right about that? Does
anybody remember where we - earlier on? 

Woman:	(Unintelligible). 

(Spencer):	Of that - of paragraph Q? Yes. It’s page 33 at the top of
the page - establishment of emergency services provided, the SSE shall
establish in writing, the type of emergency services we can expect to
perform. And based on that, roman numeral 3, the SSE shall only
designate workers whose SSE determines are properly trained, qualified
and fit based on requirements. So it’s evidence based on that already.
So I don’t know that we need to reiterate that. 

Man:	Okay. 

(Spencer):	Does that make sense Matt? 

Matt Tobia:	It does. (Unintelligible) I would just recommend deleting
the - everything in the privacy which will make it easier. But…

(Lisa Delaney):	I - just to kind of further this discussion, I’d like
to know from OSHA, is this common to have the type of language where you
would have some potential hazard to be trained to? Or it seems to me
like it’s usually not this detailed. 

(Spencer):	Yes. So what I would say is (Lisa), most of our standards
deal with very fixed work environments where the hazards are well
understood and can be well characterized. And this just allows for a
wider range of activities and scenarios. Because I think the range, not
just that this is unplanned but it’s unplanned - if the standard to
recover unplanned activities in every community in America. And so you
need to contemplate kind of a much wider range of (unintelligible). Does
that make sense? 

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick. I apologize for having to step out for a
minute. But do we want to have a line item in here for (DM)s or incident
command system at an awareness level? Or is that already in there? 

(Spencer):	It’s already in there. 

Rick Ingram:	I apologize. I didn’t…

(Spencer):	Paragraph (10). 

Rick Ingram:	…look closely. That’s what I get for stepping out. My
apologies. Thank you. 

(Spencer):	I don’t think we want to require the SSEs to provide NIMS
training to all of their employees. 

Man:	No. That’s okay. 

(Spencer):	But a basic understanding of incident command system is what
we’re looking for so that they can integrate in. I wonder what
they’re supposed to do. 

Man:	Yes. 

(Spencer):	Okay. Well moving on, there’s just a few other minor
changes in roman numeral 3 that may is changed to shall and under number
2, transitive training, must is changed to shall. And that’s the end
of the skill support section. 

Man:	I have a question. You shall not provide skills for - that’s kind
of a negative statement. Would it be better if it was written and sorry,
it’s just semantics, but so we’re saying shall not provide skill
support workers and the ESOs should not deploy (unintelligible) until
they have received that specific training. Shouldn’t we just say that
skill support workers and ESOs shall - and SSW, shall receive specific -
signed specific briefing, etc. and still shall not - instead of shall
not provide or shall not deploy? 

Man:	Or may only deploy after…

Man:	Yes. Right. 

Man:	…they have received (unintelligible)? That might be a more…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	…that’s a more affirmative statement and a simpler way to put
it. 

Woman:	I agree. Because I got tripped up on that sentence myself. I
think that’s improving it. 

Man:	I’m good with that. 

Man:	So with that being said, Bill do you want to change that now or do
you want to wait until later or do you - does everybody agree with that?


Man:	(Unintelligible). 

Man:	Yes. So they should receive their - so they’re training prior to
being deployed. 

Man:	And so I’m sorry (unintelligible). The ESOs…

Man:	The ESOs…

Man:	…knowing SSEs…

Man:	…(unintelligible). 

Man:	(Unintelligible) technology operator. (Unintelligible). 

Man:	Right. Deploy. 

Man:	Just say SSWs shall receive site specific briefing. 

Man:	(Unintelligible). 

Man:	That’s correct. Yes. you have that - you have received - you’re
right. You have received site specific briefing. 

Man:	This is a briefing? 

Man:	You’ve got it. 

Man:	All right. So then we want to keep (unintelligible) keep all the
rest of that (unintelligible) stuff there? 

Man:	(Unintelligible). 

Man:	I think you’re taking out the ESO deploying that you just got the
responsibility on the SSE at this point, and the original language I
think that both the SSE and the ESO had responsibility to insure that
briefing takes place. Do you see what I’m saying? 

Man:	Training - they - this is in the training session? 

Man:	Yes. It’s a paragraph that has subparagraph 1. 

Man:	Yes. Paragraph - okay. Okay. We’ve got a - (Lisa) you were one -
okay, go ahead. 

Man:	(Unintelligible) because it’s under the SSE section, that the
SSEs wouldn’t deploy that workers to that site unless they’ve
already conducted their training and their briefing. And unless they got
(unintelligible) the emergency response organization would be
responsible to just insure they have their card or what it is for the
employer. So I don’t know if that’s two different things. 

Man:	Well we require the SSEs to have 7-1/2 hours of pre-incident
training. But what we’re talking about here is site specific briefing
when they get to the site, you know, that the SSE and the ESO both have
a responsibility to make sure that a briefing takes place. So it’s not
just well the SSE just says well, I’ll dispatch not to the site, send
it out and then they get lost in the mix and end up not getting a site
specific briefing. 

Man:	Right. 

Man:	But in the section for emergency operations and ten, use of skill
support workers, the incident commander as designee, provides an initial
briefing to each skill support worker. 

(Andy):	Right, but so - this is (Andy). I think the key thing here is
that you need something in each section. You need the skill support
employer to know that they have to make sure that their employees
receive a briefing. And then you have the incident commander who needs
to know that they need to give the briefing, an exchange of information,
so both parties need to know that that handshake has to happen before
people work. 

	Because the whole point of this section is that skill support employers
should be able to read this section only and really know enough to be
prepared to send their people to that team. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	That level of communication similar to the instruction
(unintelligible) their own responsibility to make sure their
communication (takes place). 

Man:	(Unintelligible) but the ESO is still - the ESO incident commander
is still involved, because we (unintelligible) that just says if the
SSWs have received pre-incident training, the SSE only needs to provide
for the site briefing by the (ISE) or his representative. 

Man:	Yes. 

(Andy):	So that (unintelligible) is occurring as (unintelligible). But
you need to have it in two places. One is the incident commander’s
responsibility and the other is in the SSW section. 

Man:	So what are you suggesting (Andy)? 

(Andy):	No. I think that we need it in both places. So I think that was
- I think somebody was saying we don’t need it here because it’s in
the incident commander section. And I’m saying that we need it in both
places. 

Man:	I think we could separate this and simplify it. I can see this
causing some confusion. So maybe make a (unintelligible). Just a second
sentence there. SSWs who have received pre-incident training, can only
be - yes. 

((Crosstalk))

Woman:	…suggestion of language for III. The ESO shall insure that
skilled support workers have received site specific briefing before they
are deployed. Now remember, a briefing shall cover and then that list of
topics. If SSWs have received pre-incident training, the SSE only needs
to insure SSWs receive a briefing by the IC, receive a site briefing
from the IC. 

Man:	For his designee. 

Woman:	Cut that one out. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	So to (Sarah)’s point, do you believe that needs to be III and
IV, you know, two separate…

Woman:	No. I think…

Man:	…or just put it in the same paragraph? 

Woman:	I mean it’s all - it’s dealing with the training, you know,
train support is deployed. What does training have to consist of when
you don’t have to do as much training? I mean you can separate maybe
the last one if they haven’t - if they weren’t (unintelligible). But
I think people won’t have any difficulty (unintelligible). 

Man:	Go ahead Bill. 

Bill Warren:	SSEs deploying - employers deploying their workers is not a
training thing. It’s anything that should belong, I believe, in the
general requirement section, again as part of making sure that you’re
only sending people who are qualified to go. 

Woman:	Sure. 

Bill Warren:	I don’t think this is a training (unintelligible) thing. 

Man:	Yes. Thank you. I think I agree with Bill (unintelligible) the
wrong states because in listening to (Andy), it says that the ESO is
required to provide and give the briefing. And the SSE is required to
make sure his employee received it on site. Is that what I’m
understanding (Andy), you’re saying? So I think the briefing -
something a little different than the training. 

	The briefing is an exchange of information that should be at an
operational site. 

Man:	(Unintelligible). 

Man:	And so, you know, if we’ve covered that the ESO is required to
provide a briefing for these folks, then I think the responsibility for
this section, should be with the SSE to insure that they’ve received
that. 

Man:	Right. 

Man:	That their employee receive…

Man:	Right. But I agree with Bill that I don’t think this III is
actually in the right place, because we’ve talked about the training.
And this is a briefing that to me is an exchange of information.

Man:	Right. 

Man:	But you can call - then you can call this training and information
as a section. Okay? Because we don’t really have an operational
section for the support…

Man:	Right. 

Man:	…employer, because really the expectation is that they’re
giving those people to the ESO, to manage…

Man:	Right. 

Man:	So I think if you just call it training information and say some of
it is training and some of it is information, I’m good with that.
I’m good with that as long as if we could change it so it shall only
deploy, I really think that it should simply say three (unintelligible),
the SSE shall insure that their workers have received the right…

((Crosstalk))

Woman:	Before they are deployed. 

Man:	Right. Yes. 

Man:	Well I’ve got a - I want to make one point. Can you do - you
can’t really do a site specific briefing until you’re at the site
after you’ve deployed. 

Man:	Well I think that’s what it - yes, I agree. That’s why I think
it’s…

Man:	So I think we’re talking about two different things - the
pre-incident training is, you know, the second half of this paragraph
is, you know, is proactive training that you can do before they go to
the site and that’s what that’s saying. But a site specific
orientation or training, has to be done on the side at the incident. 

((Crosstalk))

Bill Warren:	Yes. This is Bill Warren again. And I agree with that. So
maybe this is combining two different ideas into one, and they should be
separated. 

Woman:	Could you put this III now in number three in place of what you
deleted there? So you’ve got the training, you’ve got the
pre-incident and you’ve got on site. 

Man:	I think (Spencer) has - since (Spencer) authored this or
recorded…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	That’s exactly what I was going to say. 

((Crosstalk))

Woman:	…I was anticipating. 

Man:	We - yes, we - the content flows starting with roman numeral I, the
pre-incident training has to include this content, then number two
should be the pre-incident trainings requirement - how long it is and
then we should make a number three for a site briefing connection with
the ESO. The ESO is going to provide it and the SSE has got to make sure
that it’s done. 

Rick Ingram:	Do we want to try to wordsmith that now or…

(Spencer):	Would you like me…

((Crosstalk))

(Spencer):	…do that tonight and come back with it tomorrow? 

Rick Ingram:	We might want to get it back before that. 

(Spencer):	Before tomorrow? 

Rick Ingram:	Oh no, before - tomorrow is fine. 

((Crosstalk))

(Spencer):	Yes. If you’ll excuse me, I’ll go do it right now. 

Rick Ingram:	I think tomorrow will be fine. 

(Spencer):	Okay. 

Rick Ingram:	So one of our action items will be that (Spencer) will work
on this language a little bit and then we’ll revisit it tomorrow. 

(Spencer):	Right. 

Rick Ingram:	Okay. 

Man:	Rick? 

Rick Ingram:	Yes? 

Man:	This is (unintelligible). This is a really minor administrative
thing to clean up, on page 37 under R1, small 3, small III and IV both
reference specific air purifier respirators. I would just recommend that
we change those to respirators. 

Rick Ingram:	I agree. 

Man:	Okay. 

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	Okay. I’m taking notes here so we don’t lose these
action items. (Unintelligible) and then that one was - did we change
that right now? 

(Spencer):	We did. 

Rick Ingram:	Okay. That’s changed, so that’s fine. I like that. On
the fly. Okay. 

(Spencer):	 Rick? Rick? 

Rick Ingram:	Yes? Sorry (Spencer)? 

(Spencer):	It’s important to keep air purifying under four, so R1…

((Crosstalk))

(Spencer):	It’s on page 37. It’s okay if we strike it in the first
sentence - insure that air purifying respirators are used only for those
contaminants that are certified against. But this next one - insure that
air purifying respirators are not used in ideal age. It’s important to
keep air purifying there because an ideal age atmosphere, you would want
to use a supplied air respirator of some sort. 

Man:	Yes. I would actually argue you could probably get rid of that
because it’s already covered by the respirator standard 134. That
would be a violation of the respirator standard on its own. 

Rick Ingram:	I agree. 

Man:	And so - and you would have that implied or not implied, but you
would have that covered in III which says follow all traditions of 134
when workers are wearing respirators, period. And (Andy), do I hear you
correctly? We can just strike four all together? 

(Andy):	Yes. I think you can get rid of four all together. 

Rick Ingram:	So let’s - with that being said, if you’d like to go
back to three, if we strike four can we just say follow al provisions of
1910.134 when workers are required to wear respirators, then take out
air purifying. So that’s III before. It would be R1 III. Is that
covered? Is that a yes? 

Man:	Yes. That’s a yes. That’s a yes. 

Rick Ingram:	Okay. 

Man:	And again, 134 still applies no matter what we say here. This is
just pointing to people that you have additional obligations and hey,
pay attention to these other existing obligations. 

Rick Ingram:	Okay. So that covers everything with respirators in that
one sentence. So Bill, do you want - we’ll wait until Bill and then
(unintelligible). 

Man:	(Lisa) had something before. 

(Lisa Delaney):	Just wordsmithing. This is (Lisa Delaney). On page 33,
the very top of the page, we talk about establishment of emergency
services provided. And the first I, would we want to be consistent with
how we presented for earlier that (unintelligible) said the SSE shall
establish an item - the type and level of emergency services that it
expects to perform? Or does that not apply for SSEs? Are we only
concerned with the type of emergency service? Would there be levels
associated with SSEs? 

Man:	Nobody has uttered words but heads nodded. 

((Crosstalk))

Bill Warren:	This is Bill Warren. I’ll just state that, you know, a
lot of the SSEs are contracted specifically, to do certain type of work.
And so they would ask you what they would expect to perform. For
example, on a large (unintelligible), a lot of the cities will contract
with the contractors to bring in bulldozers and front end loaders for
them to utilize. So that contractor would need to know what is the
limits of their hazards ore or what they expect their employees to
perform during those kinds of firefighting issues. 

	The same thing with tow trucks and things like that. So each of those
companies would have to understand what the level of requirements are,
specific to what they think this is going to get into. 

Man:	And even just with the training company, you’ve got to know there
are certain types of loads that you can risk and others that are beyond
the capacity of the equipment. So in certain places you can work and
certain places you can’t. You know. 

Rick Ingram:	So just - so this is (Rick Ingram) again. The - so on one
I, do we want to add anything that’s qualified to - so the SSE shall
establish running the type of emergency services it expects to and is
qualified to perform. 

(Spencer):	I’d be careful with qualified, because I don’t know that
there are people who would do the qualification for all of the types of
services and levels of services throughout the country. I mean if you
hang out your shingle and say, you know, I’m, you know, a general
contractor and I have bulldozers, I don’t know that, you know, anybody
is going to certify different levels of service or types of service,
other than your general business license, although making choices does
require for those kinds of operators to be qualified by the employee. 

	But there’s no standard or requirement or what does that really mean,
other than who experienced the training. 

Man:	Yes. 

(Spencer):	Right? And we don’t really have a history here of, you
know, we’ve done the construction industry, there’s a history of
what qualified means for qualified individuals. You don’t have any of
that here. 

Man:	Okay. 

(Spencer):	It means experience or training and sometimes experience
isn’t enough. So (unintelligible). 

Man:	A very good discussion. Thank you very much. So now let’s - I
think we kind of skipped around a little bit. And so did
(unintelligible). So Bill, how did - did you get caught up on that last
- could you show that to us, you know, the last thing that we wanted to
make? 

Bill Warren:	I think it caught up. 

Man:	Okay. So I think we’re on the - we’re ready for skilled support
- skilled support worker participation on (unintelligible). We’ve got
a guest speaker who should be here any moment. We’ll press on until he
gets here. 

Woman:	(Unintelligible) point, please enter it into the record as
exhibit 6, the report prepared by the skilled support subgroup. And
(unintelligible) together of fatigue management report. Thank you. 

Man:	So does everybody agree related to start with Section T now? Okay.
So (Spencer), do you have any comments on that? Page 38. I think
that’s where we’re at. 

(Spencer):	Yes. On page 38 there were no changes or modifications to
paragraph ten (unintelligible) worker participation. So I don’t think
that there’s any discussion on that. 

Man:	So if we went to page 39 I think there were some changes there. 

(Spencer):	That comment is the comment, the suggested liens for the IC
that Bill moved to paragraph ten. We discussed earlier today those
(unintelligible). 

Man:	They were on page - we’re on page 40. We had a couple of
additions where to (non-mandatory) appendices. 

(Spencer):	I think these were just added - on page 40, the red text
under non-mandatory appendices. These are just some notes that Bill
added to point out that we weren’t planning on putting a medical
questionnaire in the appendices…

Man:	Okay. 

Man:	…and training matrix and samples of (SDO) (unintelligible)
manufacturing and maintenance testing, etc. 

Man:	So do we have any other comments or suggestions on the topics
we’ve covered so far? 

(Andy):	Let me make one suggestion and - in the list of non-mandatory
appendices, and we may want to do this at a later meeting or later in
this meeting or at the next meeting. That’s an awful lot of
non-mandatory appendices, and a lot of that looks like it’s probably
more guidance, supplementary guidance, rather than a non-mandatory
appendix. So I would suggest that we may want to go through and
delineate what really should be a non-mandatory appendix. 

	And what is a topic that the agency should develop additional guidance
on? That would be helpful. And I think that both of those can go forward
in the report, just because it’s not a non-mandatory appendix. But
you’re just looking at an enormous document. And then the other thing
is if we do (fix) the non-mandatory appendix form, it has to stay in
federal register format, which means it’s that small writing with
crazy numbering and a pain in the butt to read. 

	Whereas if we do think that guidance, we can write something that’s
easier for people to actually read and use that has charts and graphs
and other sorts of, you know, things that we’re not allowed to use as
a (register). 

Man:	Do both of those have the same - carry the same weight? 

(Andy):	Yes. Both of them carry no weight. 

((Crosstalk))

(Andy):	There is no distinction whatsoever between guidance and a
non-mandatory appendix. Once it is a non-mandatory appendix, it carries
no legal weight. We put things in non-mandatory appendices where it’s
helpful. But what I will also state is the evolution over the last
decade or two continued to move things out of non-mandatory and into
guidance, because then you can revise and update much more easily than
changing federal register (tax). 

	Then you have again the ability to do something that is more usable
than, you know, the federal register format. 

Matt Tobia:	(Andy) this is Matt. Just the obvious question -
theoretically, we can move everything out of the non-mandatory
appendices to…

(Andy):	The guidance. Yes. 

Matt Tobia:	And still accomplish the same thing? 

(Andy):	Yes. And depending on what you were doing, you might actually do
a better job of accomplishing what you wanted, by moving it into
guidance. And what I would say the most important thing from a rule
making perspective, is capturing the intent, the flavor of what you’d
like to put in the guidance, into the preamble. So when we say levels of
types of service, what we mean is this sort of thing so that now in the
record, it captures the general feel of what we’re looking for in the
regulatory language. 

	And then you can further explain in more detail and give examples and
include pictures and describe them in the guidance. And then let me add
one more piece. What is in the preamble explaining this is what we mean
by this (unintelligible), that has the benefit of being used in
enforcement interpretations, which does carry the weight. So as we’re
interpreting the actual regulatory language, we’ll go back to the
preamble and say here’s what was meant by this. So that does matter. 

Man:	(Unintelligible). 

Man:	So we’re waiting on our guest speaker. Is he here yet? 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	He’s not here yet. I just saw (unintelligible) waiting for him in
the lobby. 

Man:	Right. Right. (Unintelligible). 

Man:	(Unintelligible). 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Okay. 

Man:	I like that. 

Man:	So we’re going to have a guest speaker that’s going to take us
maybe close to 4:00. Do we want to do public comments now and see if we
have any public comments? Is that all right with you (Lamont)? 

(Lamont Burton):	Sure. 

Man:	So do we have any public comments today? Anyone from the public?
No? Speak now or forever hold your piece, or at least until tomorrow.
Okay. All right. So we can continue on then. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	…tomorrow? Time and place? Is it here again? 

Man:	Yes. 

Man:	This room? Okay. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	And in terms of the time then, it’s 9:00. 

Man:	It’s 9:00? 

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	I don’t know. Bill? 

Bill Warren:	Yes Rick? 

Rick Ingram:	Do you know what room we’re in for day three? 

Bill Warren:	Two floors up, the same area. 

((Crosstalk))

Bill Warren:	Where you were this morning. Yes. You were two days early. 

Man:	Okay. So we can start review and discussion of incident management
or we can take a short break. 

Man:	Take a break. Take a short break. 

Man:	All right. Yes. Let’s take about a five minute break and I’ll
check on our speaker and see what’s going on. 

((Crosstalk))

(Sarah):	Hey everyone, sit down. 

Man:	In case nobody heard (Sarah), please have a seat and we’ll get
started again. Don’t ignore her. I’m telling you. I wear cowboy
boots up here because I would have bruises all up and down my leg if I
didn’t. She’ll kick you. So I just wanted to thank Mathy Stanislaus
for coming. And I’ll let you introduce yourself. But thank you very
much. 

Mathy Stanislaus:	You’re welcome. Hello everyone. I am Mathy
Stanislaus. I’m the system administrator at the US EPA Office of Land
and Emergency Management. And (Ricky) unfortunately had a bad
experience, sitting next to me on a flight from Chicago. If you
haven’t figured out what I do. So I thought I’d - he told me a
little bit about the gathering here and he thought it would be a good
idea to really connect the work that EPA has been doing to really kind
of strengthen, you know, the LEPCs and emergency responders, around
(chemical) safety. 

	So just a bit of background and a post of a number of accidents - so
(West Hatch) is being probably the most prominent. As you all probably
know, the President issued an executive order in one of the three
(Tri)-Chairs, advancing the implementation of that executive order. So a
major prong of that executive order is really figuring out how do we
better engage and provide information to LEPC’s emergency responders
in a more accessible, more understandable way. 

	So just to kind of orient you all - so I know you’re - some of you
probably are focused on the RMP rule, the risk management planning rule,
that affects about 12,500 facilities. So I’ll talk a little bit about
that towards the end. But more broadly than that, the Emergency Planning
Community Right to Know Act which requires chemical facility operators,
to provide information about chemicals, about hazards, to enable the
LEPCs and the emergency responders to develop preparedness and plan
affects 650,000 facilities. 

	You know, so what we’ve - what I’ve always said is that if all we
do is rule based requirements, we really miss a major need out there, is
to really figure out how do we better assist LEPCs and emergency
responders with respect to making sure that they have the right
information and information that’s accessible to them. And one of the
things that we’ve heard from LEPCs in relation to responders is they
don’t want a load of paper. 

	And they don’t want - they want information that could really, in
their limited time, to figure out how best to develop preparedness and
plan. So some of the things that we’ve done is we really have
developed some tools and Web based tools, to relate some of the
information about chemicals and hazards, to figure out, you know, what
are the potential chemical - I’m sorry, community facilities that have
been potentially impacted by an accident. 

	So identifying schools, identifying homes, identifying hospitals. So
that then the basis of developing being preparedness and response plans.
So things like evacuation, things like sheltering employees. Sheltering
employees - more broadly from a community wide planning perspective, but
how the individual chemical facility needs to play a role in that. 

	But also making sure that - and one of the things that we’ve heard in
holding listening sessions around the country, is that particular
leaders of community facilities like healthcare facilities, were not
regularly being brought to the table. Zoning officials are not being
regularly brought to the table. So one of the things that we’ve done
is we’ve issued a guide - it’s called How to Better Prepare Your
Community for Chemical Emergency, a guide for state and local agencies. 

	And what we have heard from folks is to really kind of reinforce the
underlying intent and obligations, to develop preparedness and planning.
So we’ve identified the critical importance of all stakeholders
including industry residents and community residents to participate in
that process. The inclusion and training of emergency responders that
deal with risk, particular attention to vulnerable residents of the
communities, handicapped, elderly and children, how that built into the
sheltering employees and evacuation. 

	You know, we recently have engaged a lot of the trade associations as
well as (NASTP) poll which is the National Association of (SARA) Title 3
Professionals, I believe. So these are the state officials engaged in
implementation of the (SARA) Title 3. They’re trying to figure out how
do we kind of collectively leverage the expertise and deal with kind of
the capacity challenges of LEPCs? And I just realized some of the things
that have come out of that conversation. 

	One of the things is to really have chemical plant managers, chemical
safety professionals really play more of a hands on role in engaging the
LEPCs and emergency response officials and bringing the expertise of the
knowledge of chemicals. You know? And some of the (unintelligible)
conversations - what chemicals should you fight a fight on? What
chemicals should you not fight a fight on? 

	You know how should you figure that out in development of a
preparedness and planning? Where you have smaller communities, rural
communities where the local government decides that for whatever reason
that managing and constructing a full blown LEPC, it maybe doesn’t
make sense but maybe we’ll do it in a more regional construct. And
we’ll present some of those models for a regional construct, to be
able to deliver that really important area. 

	You know, and lifting out some of the best practices of collaborations
of industries to do ongoing training. and for example, the Louisiana
Chemical Association working with the state police, does regular
trainings and brings those folks to the table in a regular way. How do
we do that in a more consistent basics? 

	I mean even basic things like a checklist and how do we look at when
trainings are available and even conduct of outreach to communities. The
last thing I will touch on before I get into the rule, is the federal
government sometimes is not the best well coordinated. You know, that
was supposed to be a joke. So one thing we found out that a lot of time
that we were doing inspections and DHS was doing inspections and OSHA
was doing inspections, one we were not coordinating amongst each other. 

	We’re also creating a burden at the local level. So we’ve
established some standard operating procedures. those are on a pile that
we initially did in New York and New Jersey. We’re trying to replicate
that around the country. And modifying that as appropriate. We’re
trying to make data enforcement actions. One thing that we’ve heard
from local government leaders is that, you know, they need to know what
facility they need to pay more attention to. 

	Because frankly, you know, the data shows that the repeated offenders
tend to be the ones that have some enforcement issues. But sometimes we
collectively have not informed the local LEPCs when we’ve conducted
enforcement actions, so providing that information and other kinds of
data relating to that. 

	We’ve created a centralized system of all of the agency data. It’s
available on - and I can follow up - something called a facility
registry system, which puts all our data and posts it in a Web based,
GIS based tool. The last thing that I will close on is, you know, as
part of our outreach and listening sessions, a number of things were
identified to enhance the existing risk management planning program. 

	One of them is local coordination. What we have found in after action
reports of accidents, discussions with local responders, is that there
was an inconsistency regarding a facility termination, whether they
should be what is called a responding or non-responding entity under the
risk management planning program. They were not doing the coordination
with the local response and the LEPC before they made a determination. 

	So we have proposed more of an active coordination and a confirmation
of that coordination did occur. (Exercise)s - I think probably everyone
in this room realize the value of exercises. So wrapping up everything
from notification exercise, the tabletop exercise, the field exercises,
we’ve proposed building that in various frequencies. And we receive
lots of comments about that frequency and also how do we make sure that
there’s alignment in the conduct of exercise and not creating
excessive burden on local governments. 

	So we’re kind of evaluating and processing of that. We also prose
more information sharing to LEPCs with respect to certain of the
analysis. So we propose root cause analysis of accidents, you know, how
that can be provided to LEPCs as one specific example, provide more
visibility to an exercise have been conducted. And yes, a baseline
summary of the results of these response exercises. 

	So those are the kind of the core with respect to the intersection of
the rule and preparedness and response. That deal with the element that
deals with prevention on the operational side of the facility itself. if
you’d like I can discuss that. But that’s the basis of our rule. So
I will stop there and take any questions if you have. Sure. 

Man:	Sorry. I’ll just help myself. Sir, how is the coordination
efforts between the PSM and the risk management plan at the EPA and
OSHA? How are those discussion going? And are we starting to come to a
mutual agreement between the two agencies? 

Mathy Stanislaus:	Yes. We, you know, listen as my tenure here, you know,
particularly after the executive order, you know, we said on both this
(Tri)-Chair meeting and we have a series of additional working groups,
so we’ve been coordinating from the very beginning, not only on the
rule based side, but everything that we do. Specifically, on the rule
making side, you know, making sure that alignment of terminology and
approach. 

	So clearly the PSM rule and the RNT rule has always been designed to
have kind of a unified approach so we want to continue to do that. And
we’ll want to make sure that that is what we finalize in the final
rule. 

Man:	And how close are we? Do you know? 

Mathy Stanislaus:	We’re working through the comments as we speak, you
know, in OSHA. 

Man:	Right. And so Mathy, let me inform a little bit about I think
what’s behind what Bill was saying. Our activities have been send OSHA
to EPA. And Bill comes from a (unintelligible) where OSHA has outsourced
our authority essentially to the state. And so we haven’t gotten to
that level of coordination in the state plan states. So that’s going
to be a challenge in and of itself. 

Man:	Right. 

Man:	Going through all of, you know, the estate planning states to
figure out how do we better like…

Man:	We had some discussion from the federal EPA from a safe region 9 to
the state level but that was like a year and a half ago when the
executive order first came out. And I sat on the - served on an advisory
committee for the state and we have heard much of the coordinated
efforts since then. 

Man:	Right. And I think part of that is that a lot of work is in the
(title) stage right now. You know, a couple of regions. And so we’re
not at the point yet where we’ve kind of broke it out through the
whole system. But I think that’s what’s coming in the not too
distant future. 

Man:	Good. 

Man:	So Mathy, (unintelligible) your role has gone through
(unintelligible). 

Mathy Stanislaus:	That’s right. That’s right. Yes. 

Man:	So now you’re just going through all the public comments? 

Mathy Stanislaus:	That’s right. That’s right. 

Man:	Yes. When that’s done, what’s the next step? 

Mathy Stanislaus:	Well when that’s done we’ll have to figure out how
do we bets respond to that to come up with a draft final rule. And then
it will go to OMB. So yes. 

Man:	so it’ll be a little while yet? 

Mathy Stanislaus:	It’ll be a little while, a little while. 

Man:	But it’s - well the reason I - Mathy and I had a great
conversation yesterday. And like he said, the reason I wanted him to
come here is to kind of get you that other perspective, to see what else
is going on, for the committee members. Do we have any other questions
or comments? I think Michelle…

Michelle Joseph:	(Unintelligible). 

Woman:	Would you please identify yourself for the record? 

Michelle Joseph:	Yes ma’am. 

((Crosstalk))

Michelle Joseph:	I’m Michelle Joseph from Soteria Solutions. I would
like to ask you a little more about your comment about the potential -
you were discussing the potential regional construct. I’ve been
hearing the need for that, especially in that I work a lot in the areas
of rural counties in Texas. And it seems like industry gets spread thing
(unintelligible) LEPC meeting, where they have the desire to - but I
would love an opportunity to maybe exchange emails with you for more
ideas about that. 

	Because the regional construct sounds like it would be very beneficial.
And it does - since I have been involved a little bit in both - on the
EPA level with LEPCs and steering today’s meeting and last month’s
meeting, there definitely seems like some crossover potentially to look
at, that will be putting additional responsibilities on first responders
between the EPA rule making and this new document with the emergency
response planning. 

((Crosstalk))

Michelle Joseph:	I applaud everyone and I think it’s a great step
today for you to be here and to begin those discussions together. So
thank you. 

Mathy Stanislaus:	You’re welcome. 

Man:	Go ahead (Ken). 

(Ken Fontineau):	This is (Ken Fontineau). In a lot of states that
aren’t OSHA states, the states have adopted or EPA has kind of adopted
some of the Fed OSHA rules and we use them as guideline to run our
business, and particularly Hazmat is the one that comes to mind. The -
would there be the possibility, would EPA consider this project here
once it goes to completion of perhaps the docking it is part of it for
the non-OSHA states? 

Mathy Stanislaus:	This project meaning what you’re…

Man:	Our negotiated rulemaking - the pseudo-negotiated rule making. So I
think what (Ken) is asking is, you know, you’ve adopted our
(unintelligible) standard under (unintelligible) and I think that’s
(Ken), what you’re referring to is we should begin to consider a
similar…

(Ken Fontineau):	Correct. For the states that are non-OSHA at this
point. 

Mathy Stanislaus:	I mean clearly (unintelligible)…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	…sign off on it. We promise it’s good. 

Mathy Stanislaus:	Yes. My intention is to kind of align and simplify as
much of each of our agencies as possible, because on the ground, you
know, having duplication that we don’t understand, sometimes comes
together and it doesn’t really benefit anyone for kind of the ultimate
goal of public safety. You know, so to the extent yes, I mean we’ll
take a look at that. Absolutely. So…

Man:	I’ve got a question. Has EPA engaged the FRA also in some of
these discussions, as the rail system is one of the primary reasons why
we see a lot of accidents and particularly in the movement of hazardous
materials across the country? 

Mathy Stanislaus:	Yes. So just to be clear, so this rule deals
exclusively in fixed facilities. We’re separately doing and engaging
the DOT on kind of the broader issues of rail transport. You know, so we
have the regional concept, regional contingency for planning areas. We
are in the states with the highest density of rail transport, we’re
developing contingency plans around oil spills right now. And we’ve
developed some models and I can provide you some of those. 

Man:	Great. Any other questions - how about any questions - we’ve got
a lot of firefighting organizations represented here, national
firefighters organizations and departments, so any questions there on
responsivities that are included in the RMP? 

Man:	Well I think out to the West Texas event, I think a couple of
concerns - one was just the lack of, you know, coordinated training was
our big effort that people looked at in the investigation. But really
it’s for any kind of local fire department, any kind of - I’m trying
to find out what are the hazardous materials and where are they, from
the electronic? I’m really trying to understand in West Texas, you
know, the ammonium nitrate, did the fire department, you know, how do we
get that communication? 

	It seems like, you know, we’re always showing up. The biggest thing
that we have to do is we have to scramble for the information as to what
exactly is on the site here. And I know there was a lot of work. I
don’t know if it was an electronic manifest that’s been going on.
We’ve had that with Hazmat, you know, across. But only six facilities
trying to really identify those hazards ahead of time. 

	And the LEPCs, I mean some of them are effective and I think you’ve
done where some of them are just - there were many more there on a piece
of paper but really the coordination is just non-existent and they
really are not effective. And hopefully best practices will start to
surface. I love the regional approach too. I think you get more - we get
more benefit from that. But on understanding where those chemicals are,
can you just explain a little bit what took place or what has taken
place, as to get that information to the emergency responders in a more
timely manner? 

Mathy Stanislaus:	Well let me separate my answer between the 650,000
(unintelligible) and really make (unintelligible) submissions, not just
(unintelligible). So, you know, we’ve been trying to do more outreach
on one, the presentation of that information in a more understandable
way, you know, a (laconic) way, providing tools to analyze that
information. The second thing is and I’ve written every single trade
association requesting that their members - manage the member that, you
know, (unintelligible) responsibility is not a single day of the year
activity. 

	You know, it really - I mean the leading company is not bad, right?
Leading companies engage in doing that, engaging in exercises and
ongoing dialog. And frankly there is a lot - there’s a significant
number of companies that you have responsibilities as (unintelligible)
submission only. So, you know, part of the - we’re a little kind of
constrained with respect to what our role is in (unintelligible), you
know, and we’ve been trying to clarify - sort of been guided, trying
to find roles and responsibilities. 

	You know, I’ve tried to have industry communicate to their plan
managers about their responsibility of engaging on the very topic. So
those are the things that we have been doing. That’s on the
(unintelligible) side. On the RMP side, you know, it’s - we have
proposed more specific sharing of information to the - to both the LEPCs
and local response agencies in particular categories. 

	And not just in the chemicals but, you know, what are some basic
lessons that after action, a root cause analysis if you want. 

Man:	Just to follow up on that, you mentioned New York and New Jersey
you were doing some pilot. 

Mathy Stanislaus:	Yes. 

Man:	Can you just go into that a little bit? What - was that with the
different agencies working together on the inspection part of the
process? Was that OSHA? Was that EPA? Was that…

Mathy Stanislaus:	Yes. It was OSHA, EPA and DHS with the states and some
invited LEPCs and emergency response organizations. I don’t know. I
can get you the details of that. I mean it included - some of the
results, and I - we have (unintelligible) the standard operating
procedure from the region 2 pilot, New York and New Jersey, I apologize,
are posted on our Web site. I can get that to you. 

	So it included everything - how to best engage and provide
notification. You know, making plan professionals available, how you
make them available in an emergency. How to conduct notification, well
pre-emergency (unintelligible) of engagement. So those are things that
immediately come to mind, you know, but…

Man:	Okay. So more on the community risk - I mean we’re doing a lot
here for making sure that those local responders do a community risk
assessment. We’re really pushing that because they have to - it’s
not just one way, it’s both ways. But we have to understand that also.
So I do - I did talk to some of our members - New York and New Jersey,
knowing that that regional - that that was being conducted up there. 

	Are - the results online right now, are there the best practices from
that, from your tabletop exercises and what you’ve done up there,
available to the rest of the fire service? 

Mathy Stanislaus:	Yes. I mean it’s the job standard offering practices
based on best practices. 

Man:	Okay. 

Mathy Stanislaus:	That is available. And we’ve asked all the other
regions who use that initial template, to have similar conversations
with all the other regions around the country. So that conversation is
going on right now. 

Man:	Excellent. 

Mathy Stanislaus:	And I should note that one of the comments that we
received during the rule making is (unintelligible) to standards of
emergency preparedness (employee) and how we should refer to that in the
rules. (Unintelligible). 

Man:	Any other comments or questions? We’re bumping up against our
4:00 close time, but any…

Woman:	Let me ask a quick one. For purposes of the transcript and
record, Mr. Stanislaus name is spelled Mathy, M-A-T-H-Y, Stanislaus,
S-T-A-N-I-S-L-A-U-S. 

Man:	And would it be all right if we share your contact information? So
I happen to have your cell phone and home. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I was being facetious again. So thank you so much Mathy…

((Crosstalk))

Mathy Stanislaus:	You’re welcome. Take care. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	So I think we - so (Lamont), do you want to - are you…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	So we’ll go ahead and - I think we’ll go ahead and with
everybody’s consent we’ll adjourn for today and we’ll see you back
here at the same place at 9:00 am in the morning, and I’ll try to
catch an earlier (cab). Thank you very much. 

END

NWX-DOL OSHA 

Moderator: Gretta Jameson

07-12-16/3:40pm CT

Confirmation # 9255919

Page  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1 

