NWX-DOL OSHA

Moderator: Gretta Jameson

July 13, 2016

3:11 pm CT

Rick Ingram:	Good morning everybody. Just for the record, we'll go
through and do a real quick introduction and we have a new solicitor
here so we'll start with (Jenny).

(Jennifer Levins):	Hi, I'm (Jenny), (Jennifer Levins) from the OSHA
division of the OSHA solicitor. Here's your counsel today. (Sarah Short)
will have to be at another meeting in the building today.

	So I'm filling in for her and happy to meet with you all today, if
anybody has any questions or concerns of course, feel free to let me
know about that.

Rick Ingram:	I'm Rick Ingram, I'm one of the co-chairs. I'm a management
member for full MACOSH and I happen to work for BP in Houston and lead
the National Steps Network.

(Lamar Bird):	I'm (Lamar Bird). I'm another one of the co-chairs. I'm a
full MACOSH member. I'm Safety and Health Director with the teamsters.

Mark Hagemann:	Mark Hagemann with OSHA's Directorate of Standards and
Guidance. I am the alternate designated federal official filling in for
(Andy), who's going to be running a bit late again this morning.

Victor Stagnaro:	Good morning, I'm Victor Stagnaro with the National
Fallen Firefighters Foundation.

Bill Warren:	I'm Bill Warren with the Arizona Division of Occupational
Safety and Health.

(Ron Gravdienero):	(Ron Gravdienero), Association of Firefighters
sitting in for Pat Morrison for a few hours this morning.

(Matt Debut):	Good morning I'm (Matt Debut) with International
Association of Fire Chiefs.

Bill Hamilton:	Bill Hamilton, OSHA Director Standards and Guidance.

(Chris Tremlin):	(Chris Tremlin), Construction Training Engineer for the
Operating Engineers.

Spencer Schwegler:	Spencer Schwegler, National Billing Trades, CPWR.

Kurt Voigt:	Kurt Voigt, National Fire Protection Association.

(Kathy Robinson):	(Kathy Robinson), National Association State EMS
Officials.

Lisa Delaney:	Lisa Delaney with the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health.

(Tim Fonteno):	(Tim Fonteno) with National Volunteer Fire Council.

Rick Ingram:	So we'll go ahead and introduce the guests. This will give
you guys a chance to introduce yourselves, so guests, gentleman and
ladies, I'm sorry. And we'll start right over here.

Woman:	(Unintelligible) OSHA, Office of (unintelligible).

Woman:	(Unintelligible)

Man:	(Unintelligible)

Rick Ingram:	Okay. All right. And we have one more gentleman walking in.
You're just right on time, Grady. Want to introduce yourself next
please?

Grady DeVilbiss:	(Unintelligible) Mister co-chair. Grady DeVilbiss

Rick Ingram:	All right. Within (FDA), right?

Grady DeVilbiss:	Yes.

Rick Ingram:	Okay. All right. I was - I had a question this morning and
I wanted to - I think that'd be a good way to start the meeting, if you
all don't mind giving me a little bit of latitude.

	I had a question about, what's the chances of this actually making it
to law? So we did all of this work, and we're sometime - yes we're
having really good debates and a lot of research, and we know this is an
election year.

	And I have no idea what the process will be. I know it's a lengthy
process to get this into law, but I think it's a good question to keep
us centered as we go through the next two days.

	And that is, are we writing something that is going to make a
difference? Are we really going to make a difference for first
responders and ESOs and all the people that would use this? Is it
practical, is it is it functional, and does it make sense?

	And for state plans, states, and non-state plan states. Is everybody
going to be able to use this? So as we go through this today and we're
going to be going back through the documents from today, think about
that.

	And we just have to do the best we can. And we'll submit it to MACOSH
this fall. We've got today, tomorrow, one more meeting after this. I'm
not sure how many days that will be, and then we'll submit it to MACOSH.

	So let's just keep that in mind that this is for the end users. It's
not for us. It's for the end users. And does it make sense, and will it
work, and will folks want to use it.

	So (Ken), you had brought up a question, does that kind of help you a
little bit?

(Ken Botno):	It does, Mr. Chair, because as I mentioned to you from my
background and small town, small operation fire departments, with a
document of this sort that to me just appears very straightforward and
workable. It would give a lot of good tools to small departments and
large departments as well, on how to do their business safer and better
and follow guidelines.

	So I would maybe challenge the - I say challenge (unintelligible) say
this, that as an organization, and all us organizations represented
here, we should probably stay on top of this movement forward and
continue to make our presence known. That we think this is a good
document and should be adopted.

	And I guess what I'm having trouble figuring out, or what I was having
trouble, is why would somebody oppose it? If it's better and works, you
know, makes more sense, then why not update something that's been around
since - for a while. So that was my concern.

Rick Ingram:	(Bill)?

(Bill):	Well thank you, co-chairman, as you know from the OSHA point of
view, the bigger concern is, is that a majority of the impact of this
new standard falls on the public sector. And so when the federal state,
they are exempt from this. So the public sector and the federal states
are exempt from this.

	There are a few minor things that they will be able to do, like private
ambulance companies and private fire departments. But the large majority
that this impacts is on mostly the governmental, local fire departments,
chambers, and a few management systems. So that's I think the concern
from the OSHA standpoint, is that we've got a standard that part of it's
not enforceable in federal states.

	As far as, like is it going to be better? I think this is one of the
more well written documents that OSHA's come out with. And I hope this
one doesn't take as long as the walking, working, services has taken.

Rick Ingram:	(Unintelligible)

(Bill):	Or (unintelligible).

Rick Ingram:	(Unintelligible) in years of course. So as far as, is our
effort good? I think we'll pull all the efforts of this subcommittee. I
think speaks very well of protection of the emergency management folks
throughout the nation.

	The sad part is, is in the 25 -- or now 24, because Maine just joined
OSHA in the public sector. The 24 remaining states for a large majority
of those employers can't - it will have no impact because they are
exempted from it.

((Crosstalk))

Mark Hagemann:	Can I comment on that? I beg to differ. We kind of have
that Hazwoper standard that is also similarly only enforceable by the
state planned state, however, most of the states do fall as Hazwoper
standard.

	And I think this is the same thing. People don't just ignore stuff that
OSHA puts out. Even if it's not forceful, they still do it. So if we can
get the states that are not state by states that do an assessment on
their risk assessment on their community, then it is gone out.

	And they don't just blow off stuff that OSHA puts out.

Man:	I would disagree to a point. I do know some states do not follow
the Hazwoper rules of government. So, you know, again, I know the
passion. I understand it and I think that we are moving forward to
protect workers.

	But we just have to understand that there is going to be a significant
difference.

Rick Ingram:	A couple of more comments, (Ken). I know that…

(Ken Botno):	Yes, from my experience, I've seen a trickledown effect
from OSHA down to standard making organizations and curriculum
development organizations. So OSHA is sort of the starting point.

	So when an organization and they're very particular, we'll look to rule
or to standard making, they kind of look at some of these OSHA guides.
So even though maybe it's unenforceable in 24 states per se, I believe
that trickle down is going to still have a lot of the same impact.

	I personally feel that this is a really good document and it'll outlive
the - it's installing an outlive need perhaps but, I believe long term
for the fire services is a good thing. And we should, as all
organizations, try to make sure that it gets put in to rule.

	Tweaked out and ruled and work for the best. So that's sort of an
offset, unintended consequence you will, but I just see it as a starting
point for many organizations to look at.

Rick Ingram:	Okay, (Lamar)?

(Lamar Bird):	Yes, I just wanted to make a couple of quick comments.
One, I think Rick mentioned when he began this discussion, that our
charge is to provide a report to the full MACOSH.

	And I think that, you know, what we're pulling together is going to be
a very, very fine document. And hopefully MACOSH will, you know, see -
the full MACOSH will seriously consider it and move forward.

	But regardless of what happens, you know, there's - when I look at this
body of subject matter experts, I mean, you know, these are - the
players are here. And everybody's engaged, everybody has input into this
process. I think that the document we're going to develop is going to
be, you know, a gold standard of sorts.

	And I think that because we use a docket where this body of work and
the supporting documents will be stored, it will serve as a kind of
clearing house of sort for ESOs who are interested in doing the right
thing.

	Yes, so I don't think this is - I don't think this is a wasted effort,
you know, no matter what the end result is, so.

Rick Ingram:	Go ahead, (Kathy).

(Kathy Robinson):	Hello, (Kathy Robinson). I just wanted to ask a
question. I noticed on the screen where it says, "The standard will
replace an entire existing standard." Wouldn't that be a different
process than OSHA creating a standard from scratch or is it still an
arduous path of completion?

Mark Hagemann: It's still just as arduous, whether you're replacing an
existing standard or creating a standard from scratch. We're at the
point now where this subcommittee's at the point now -- and this is Mark
Hagemann -- where you guys are helping develop reg text for us.

	That reg text then has to be turned into a proposed rule. So while the
justification, all the background information, everything that's
required to develop a proposed rule will be done by OSHA.

	And then we go through hearings and we develop a final rule. So, you
know, to answer to - attempt to answer Rick's question, which I really
can't, there's no way to tell how long it's going to take for an OSHA
standard to get out. There's so many factors involved.

	I can tell you that right now the agency is committed to this rule
making. Just by the fact the we've convened a subcommittee shows the
commitment that, you know, we're getting the experts together, we're
moving forward, we're asking you guys for help to develop reg text for
us so we can then move forward to develop a proposed rule. And then move
on from there, so.

Rick Ingram:	So I'll finish with this if it's all right. We don't have
any control over what will happen to this document after it leaves us.
We, you know, (Lamar) and I will propose - we'll push it forward to full
MACOSH. They'll decide whether to submit it or not for rulemaking to
OSHA, to decide whether or not to go through the rule making process.

	What we do have control—and we don't have control over it after the
process is over, whichever way it goes—what we do have control over is
here and now. And that is all of this. This text that we're writing. And
so we just want to make it the very best that we can.

	And that's where I want you to leave this. I think this was a good
discussion. It kind of gets one of the elephants out of the room to
start the day.

	And I just wanted to get here early enough today, rather than
yesterday, to tell all of you, what a great job. What a wonderful job
you have all done.

	And I've seen and heard some of the background discussions going on to
develop some of these texts - some of this text. And to see the
evolution has been pretty amazing. Just such dedication. I think that
the folks out there in the field would be proud of us.

	And I look to Victor with the Fallen Firefighter's Association, and I
hope we're giving it justice. We don't want any more fallen
firefighters. So thank you all very much for that.

	So with that, I think, (Bill), you wanted to take us through the text
that we changed?

Bill Hamilton:	Sure. Bill Hamilton. First I'll remind you to, for the
transcriptionists, to state your name when you're speaking. Second, just
as a reminder, I know everybody's been in the building before and some
of you were here yesterday when we actually did have a shelter in place
and essentially the building locked down. 

	The capital on a lock down made the news. What they didn't really
clarify was that it was actually occurring underneath our building. So
there has to be shelter in place for this facility was a true need for
shelter in place and they did lock the doors and keep people from
leaving the building at some point.

	So some of you got lucky and got out and caught your train, and some of
us had to sit and wait for a while. But just as reminder that it is
important that we follow the shelter in place.

	This is in one of the rooms that if it's a complete lockdown we lock
ourselves in here and (Andy) said yesterday there's water and snacks
over there. I think Victor's already helped himself.

Victor Stagnaro:	Thank you.

Bill Hamilton:	So if the fire alarm goes off, the exits are right
outside the doors. Just go down the stairs and…

	My suggestion is, at least when the fire alarm goes off, is make sure
you take your keys, your ID, whatever it is you need to not have to come
back in the building if possible.

	So that being said. Oh, so what's on the, I would say, "Screen" but
it's actually the wall, is what is current in this document to the best
of my ability as of this morning. And so I'm going to run through some
of that.

	I did change the date. Yesterday's - the one that you have on paper in
your hand is called, "Draft Five" and its revisions on the main meeting.
Because we are working on this, and I'm changing it through the course
of the meeting, tried to stay that.

	And then so down in the box, it does instead of saying I incorporated
comments from before and during the - from the subgroups, I change it to
actually being during this meeting. Okay. So that's that.

	So yesterday I went through everything fairly quickly, all the changes
that we made. So I thought today before we get started into the meat of
the rest of it, that we would just go through and, if we could, accept
the rest of the changes that I discussed or fix them, or make a note to
fix them again later.

	So in this definition for community vulnerability and risk assessment,
the subgroup that worked on that added the sentence down here, that if
the assessment is intended to include human created vulnerability and
natural disasters. We okay with that?

Man:	(Unintelligible) Yes, okay. Thank you.

Bill Hamilton:	I'm sorry this is going to take me just a couple minutes
because I'm terrible at technology. (Unintelligible) my computer.

	All right. Next is the facility vulnerability and risk assessment, and
it is essentially the same as the one we just looked at. But community
vulnerability and risk assessment. (Unintelligible) Everybody seems to
be okay with that.

	Good Samaritans. This is one that we talked about yesterday and (Amy)
and I were tasked with working on a definition which we did not do last
night at the meeting. Although, I did go through and I did make a couple
little changes and so let me - we can - if you want to look at that now
we can look at it and see if it's okay.

	I shortened it. I tried to make it, just a Good Samaritan's a person
who typically is at or arrived at the scene of an incident and
voluntarily provides assistance prior to the arrival of the ESO.

	It's pretty vague. I did a Google search for some definitions of a Good
Samaritan. A lot of them talked about Good Samaritan laws. But this is
the kind of the concept. So we can continue to think about that.

	As I said I had not talked to my attorney to see how she feels about it
but it's just something that I had worked on. But I know that's still
out there for us to do, unless you like it.

Man:	Well, I like it. I like the simple definition myself.

Bill Hamilton:	Yes. All right. So we okay with that then? It's fine with
me. And you know, there's, like everything, we get another crack at
every single bit of this somewhere else down the road.

	Non-governmental organization. I'll put pre into the plan so you can
read them both at the same time. I'll get rid of my name. Yes that would
be a good thing.

Rick Ingram:	I'm just reading through the…

Bill Hamilton:	I'm sorry. Yes, sir. I'm sorry, Rick. I realize you guys
are having a hard time reading that from there.

	These actually are on your print out from yesterday. Non-governmental
organization is a non-profit, voluntary citizens' group which is
organized on a local, national, or international level and is
independent of government control.

	Examples include, Red Cross, state-based organizations, Citizens'
Emergency Response Teams, et cetera.

Spencer Schwegler:	It's Spencer. I'm not sure that, "Citizens' Emergency
Response Team" is the term that you're looking for. I think they're
looking for CERT. CERT is Community Emergency Response Team, not
Citizens'.

Man:	I think that the dispatch of the (unintelligible) is connected to a
government (unintelligible) CERT teams.

Spencer Schwegler:	That's a good question. All of them that I'm aware of
are part of the community. Either the county emergency management
organization or at least the fire district.

Rick Ingram:	You could certainly say, you know, community organized, you
know, emergency res - you know, community organized teams. There are -
this was mentioned to me. There are, you know, certainly independent -
they're communities that for their own groups to try to support
themselves in the event of an emergency. Usually the first 72 hours. But
I do think that CERT teams are typically government as opposed to
non-government.

Man:	Oh, I see.

Spencer Schwegler:	They're completely volunteers.

Man:	(Unintelligible) they're voluntary. 

Spencer Schwegler:	Yes.

Man:	Are they funded by the government?

((Crosstalk))

Man:	(Unintelligible) like states, you know, the (FDRC) state
(unintelligible) emergency response team and they do have the CERT's
(unintelligible). So those are all governmental implement, you know,
implemented by the government.

	You know, there are volunteers that serve on those teams, but they're
managed by and supported by, funded by, usually their local EPA,
emergency management, or one of those other things.

Man:	Probably not the best example, but Doctors without Borders.

Bill Hamilton:	All right. So should we just take out - I don't see this
needs to change then…

((Crosstalk))

Bill Hamilton:	…community.

Rick Ingram:	(Unintelligible) community volunteer organization. Does
that work?

Bill Hamilton:	Community based effort (unintelligible) voluntary
assistance group. Well this is a such as or examples. And I guess we
were…

Man:	(Unintelligible) you can…

Bill Hamilton:	Yes, so if I can…

Man:	Yes, totally, I'm just saying. Yes. You just leave it out
(unintelligible).

Bill Hamilton:	Okay.

Woman:	So I think the proper term for Red Cross is American Red Cross.

Bill Hamilton:	Oh yes. Well. Okay. Yes, you're right.

Woman:	(Unintelligible) mention.

Bill Hamilton:	Well. How did I Google and get two things wrong.

	All right. So now it says, "Non-governmental organizations of
non-profit voluntary citizens' group which is organized on a local,
national, or international level and is independent of government
control. Examples include: American Red Cross, faith-based
organizations, et cetera."

Rick Ingram:	Do we need the examples at all? Or do you usually use
examples?

Bill Hamilton:	Well it makes it easier to understand who we're - who we
mean, so yes, I think it would be good.

Rick Ingram:	Okay.

Bill Hamilton:	Okay. Next is Pre-Incident Plan. A document developed by
gathering general and detailed data that is used by responding personnel
and effectively managing emergencies for the protection of occupants,
responding personnel, property and the environment.

	It is developed before an incident occurs and is intended to be used
during an incident to aid in mitigation.

(Matt Debut):	Actually, I think that looks good.

Bill Hamilton:	I'll take (Matt)'s word for it and accept all the
changes.

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Bill Hamilton:	All right. Next.

(Matt Debut):	(Bill), are you going to - I asked you to go back and
clean it up - this is (Matt Debut). I know you'll go back and clean it
up but just removing the NFPA reference and - unless you're using the
(unintelligible).

Bill Hamilton:	Well yes because - well I can get rid of it in this
definition. And because some of the other - I think some of the other
definitions also have the - where we - because remember that implied -
or that's trying to show where we pulled the definition from.

(Matt Debut):	Right.

Bill Hamilton:	You're right. Yes. It does not - we don't need it in
there. So I can get rid of that one. (Unintelligible) I've got lots of
stuff to clean up at some point.

Rick Ingram:	So just to clarify, are we taking out all the references
and definitions or not?

(Matt Debut):	(Unintelligible) this is (Matt), I didn't mean for it to
become a boring discussion, I just wanted to make sure - as opposed to
being at the end, this would happen to be in the middle.

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	Well and…

(Matt Debut):	Because it's in the middle of the…

((Crosstalk))

Bill Hamilton:	I can tell you why. I would think - the reason we put all
the references in there is, initially for you folks, and I'm not sure as
it goes forward to MACOSH, to be able to show them all the stuff that is
in here, we based it on some other things. And that one happens to be in
the middle of that because the previously the definition of Pre-Incident
Plan ended where the parenthesis are.

	After discussion at the main meeting of when is it done and how is it
used. I added that last sentence to try and - for clarity. So this last
sentence, "Is developed before incident" blah blah blah, sentence is
just there for clarity that I didn't really - I didn't pull out of NFPA.


	Because the rest of this is almost word for word out of the NFPA. Those
three NFPA documents. But this is just added for clarity. So that's why
that - we can leave it in the middle of that thing there.

(Matt Debut):	Okay.

Bill Hamilton:	Guess I should - well, we'll - okay thank you.

Man:	So if that's (unintelligible).

Bill Hamilton:	I'm sorry what? Go ahead, I'm sorry, Kurt Voigt?

Kurt Voigt:	Is that the same language for Pre-Incident Plan for each one
of those? And what I'm getting at is, is it - if it's in 1006 and it's
extracted from 1081, 1620, you could actually remove the other two and
just leave one.

Bill Hamilton:	True.

Kurt Voigt:	As long as the language isn't different. I didn't know if
you mixed the language from those three documents or if it's…

Bill Hamilton:	No actually I think almost - I think they're almost
identical word for word. There might be one or - I think they're almost
identical. Or are identical. But I put the three of them there because
those are the different documents that…

Kurt Voigt:	It was listed under?

Bill Hamilton:	Yes. So and then somebody may say, well maybe the - maybe
one of the other ones has different definitions…

Kurt Voigt:	Got you.

Bill Hamilton:	…and we're just trying to…

Rick Ingram:	Well (Bill), I'll challenge whether or not we need that
last sentence in there after the references.

Bill Hamilton:	Okay.

Rick Ingram:	Because I think, you know, just by the term,
"Pre-Incident", I understand why you have it in there, but I think our
pitch later on clarifies that. Anybody? I might be wrong, I just throw
things out for discussion, but.

Bill Hamilton:	Well, I added it just because it was a little bit of a -
there was discussion at the last meeting of, you know, unclear how, you
know, when it was done or how it was used.

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Bill Hamilton:	I think, but I mean it - I could - does it help or does
it hinder, or?

Bill Warren:	What happens, (Bill) - this is Bill Warren. What would
happen if you said at the beginning, adopted, developed before, or
adopted (unintelligible) go down here. Adopted, developed before an
incident occurs by gathering (unintelligible). We eliminate that whole
last sentence.

Bill Hamilton:	Sure.

Bill Warren:	Or developed before gathering.

Man:	(Unintelligible).

(Ken Botno):	…sentence even longer. I just kind of like the idea of it
saying that it's intended to be used during an incident because a lot of
organizations do they use - do they actually use them? Just reinforces
the idea that's what they're there for.

	A lot of departments have these books and books and books with the
preplans, and they still get into trouble. It's once a year they come
out with (unintelligible).

(Greg):	I agree, (Ken). This is (Greg). I think we have to, you know,
we're trying to stay focused on the intended audience of all this work.
You know those that aren't used to putting this all into play. So I like
a little bit more in there personally.

Bill Hamilton:	I thought we had (unintelligible) later on regarding
their overall assessment. Because I'm sure as you guys all know, in my
other life, what we found is that our war plans usually went out the
window the time the first bullet started flying.

	So I'm sure that in the fire service, the same thing occurs when you
roll up onto the scene because they're all so different. The
Pre-Incident Plans gets you to where what your hazards are in the
community, what you think you need to do and how you need to plan for
it.

	But I thought we had something else down with the risk assessment and
the community assessment plans all go into that too.

	And if you want to, where it says that, you know, intended to use
during, what you can do is by gathering general and detailed
(unintelligible) then you - I think you can move that, "Intended to use
during" somewhere towards the end of that, of where it says,
"Environment." I think that covers what you're asking for, (Ken). Just
makes for one long sentence.

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Bill Hamilton:	So intended to be used during an incident to aid in
mitigation, and then you can end the sentence right there. Right after,
"Environment" you can add that. Go back to leave it like it was.

Man:	I was looking over at (Amy), who is our project attorney, because I
suspected that if I make one sentence that covers, you know, four lines
or five lines in the document, she's going to ask me to break it into
two. So I mean.

Man:	Let's go back. All right.

Woman:	(Unintelligible) I just think (unintelligible) if you're going to
have the information in there, you want to make it as doable as
possible. And so (unintelligible).

Bill Hamilton:	I think…

Woman:	(Unintelligible).

Bill Hamilton:	I appreciate your support. So as the - yesterday in the
sidebar discussion, talking about rapid intervention teams and ensuring
that a rapid intervention team is not the same as two-in, two-out, which
is down here, which is in the respirator standard.

	So created this definition, you have not seen it yet in the document.
It - so we can think about it now or think about it for later. I'll read
it, says, "Rapid intervention team, also known as a rapid intervention
crew, or firefighter assist and search team, a team of at least two
responders dedicated solely to serve as a standby rescue team available
for the immediate search and rescue of any missing, trapped, injured, or
unaccounted for responders. Responder. Responders."

	"This team shall be fully equipped with the appropriate personal
protective" - oh well, okay, says, "clothing, protective equipment,
(FCDA) and specialized rescue equipment needed as based on the specifics
of the operation that is underway."

	"A rapid intervention team is not the same as two-in, two-out, which is
a specific requirement."

	It's a - I pulled - I looked - I pulled a couple different definitions
together. To me it looks like it needs to be cleaned up a little bit,
but I just wanted to get - at least get the concept in here as a
definition. Because, just for clarity because it's - it was a good idea
to add.

(Ken Botno):	This is (Ken). (Bill), I's just take out, "As", where it
says, "Equipment needed." Take out as and just (unintelligible).

Bill Hamilton:	Oh, okay. That's good.

(Ken Botno):	Reads a little simpler.

Bill Hamilton:	Yes, and then I'm looking at, "Personal protective
clothing and protective equipment." It should just be, "Personal
protective equipment." Right? Do you think?

Man:	No.

Bill Hamilton:	No? Keep it separate?

Man:	Yes.

Bill Hamilton:	Okay.

Man:	It's a separate issue.

Bill Hamilton:	Okay.

(Matt Debut):	This is (Matt). The national standard for every center,
seventeenth international standard for staffing is four personnel for a
crew. And I know that there are - I know there's also 7 NFDA 1720. And I
don't want to get bogged down in identifying a number.

	I would offer that perhaps you'd want to give consideration to saying
that it should be a team of at least four responders, and that's borne
out of the research that came out of the (unintelligible) firefighter
fatality in Phoenix where they demonstrated that they actually, that
typically the need to rescue one firefighter will typically involve a
minimum of twelve firefighters and then at least one of them will at
some point need to be rescued as well.

	And I think an initial team of four would be appropriate, however, I'm
also sensitive to the fact that staffing challenges exist throughout
this county. And perhaps we want to eliminate any number. But the Two
in-Two out rule is really - only applies to putting two people in an
IDLH environment.

	We typically put far more than that in an IDLH environment
simultaneously, and so the likelihood one of them needing to be rescued
increases exponentially.

	And so I would just offer that we would perhaps give consideration to a
different number or take the number out. Having said that, the question
that OSHA's going to get is, define a team. If we just leave it as a
team without any number whatsoever, they'll be asked for interpretation.
What does a team consist of?

Bill Warren:	Yes. Bill Warren. So (Matt), if I could ask you, from your
experience in the firefighting issue, are most chiefs going to have the
ability to have two folks standby? In a general fire, say one alarm, or
two?

(Matt Debut):	Well anybody that's following OSHA right now is following
the 1910-134 standard, is meeting - is certainly meeting the - might be
two-in, two-out requirements.

Bill Warren:	That's correct. But this sounds to me like it means you
have two guys standing by in case something happens. But my question is,
the chief, you know, is that like in a confined space entry where you
have your entrance and then you have your observer, the observer does
not go in but consistently observes the entrance that's in there to
ensure that if he needs to call emergency, he can.

	So are we saying here that we're going to have two firefighters
standing by to act as a rapid response team? And if so, is that
realistic for the general of municipal or city fire departments? I'm
just curious what you think.

(Matt Debut):	My answer to that would be, yes. Based on, you know, what
is currently going on in most municipal fire departments are trying to
staff that at four. Many volunteer fire departments across this country
are relying on mutual aid and are setting up dedicated response teams.
Either regionally or county wide where they are, in fact, assembling,
you know, a team of four at a minimum.

	And what you will see, you know, a good example, Lancaster County
Pennsylvania, I believe has three different department - three different
volunteer departments, strategically located throughout the county such
that if there is a need for, on any working incident, they go. And their
only job is to staff this function.

Man:	(Unintelligible).

Bill Warren:	Okay, any other thoughts about that for four? Staffing
four?

Bill Hamilton:	So I have one.

Bill Warren:	Okay.

Bill Hamilton:	This is (Bill). I remembered that we talked about rapid
inter - part of how we can do it yesterday, we were talking about rapid
intervention and mayday. And then I remembered that in our - in section
- in paragraph N6 on page 29, we actually have this (unintelligible).

	We have not talked about that as a group. We have not talked about that
part as a group yet. There is an entire piece on rapid intervention. And
one of the things there is in - is of the - when the ESO develops an SOP
about a rapid intervention, it identifies the minimum number of
responders needed for the team.

	So I know that's discussion coming up. How about if at this point we
leave, I'll leave this here in track changes with a note for us to come
back to later, and so we can just have as a definition for rapid
intervention team: A team of responders dedicated solely to service
standby rescue.

	And not put a number in here because later on we talk - let them, you
know, let - how many - you develop a team, you identify how many people
you need for that team. And we can revisit it then. 

	But that leaves this, and that's one of the issues that (Amy) hasn't
swatted me in the back of the head yet, but I know she would bring up
is, by saying four, that's establishing a requirement. And I cannot put
a requirement in the definition. All right?

(Amy):	(Unintelligible).

Bill Hamilton:	Because (Sarah)'s not here because otherwise it would be
(Sarah). So I look to you for help all the time, (Amy).

(Amy):	Well I didn't think that we wanted to fight it. I mean, yes, if
you want to permit less than four, we shouldn't put four in the
definition. That's true. But the team, I think by definition is more
than one, so I think team sort of applies.

Bill Hamilton:	Right.

(Amy):	I think.

Bill Hamilton:	I would agree.

Man:	Yes. And again, this is just (unintelligible) the discussion -
there is a lot of discussion within the fire service, if you're meeting
the Two in-Two out, you're meeting the intent of rapid intervention.
Those are not the same thing. And there really needs to be, I think, a
clear understanding of the fact that they are not the same thing.

	Because if you put ten responders into a, you know, and IDLH
environment, two individuals standing outside in standby are not going
to be sufficient to rescue two or more individuals who are lost or
trapped.

	And the idea is that in a Two in-Two out situation, you've limited the
number of responders inside the IDLH environment. Once you cross that
threshold into more, you should be bolstering that capability of
rescuing our own.

	So defining that number, I don't know that we'd want to define that
number, and I agree 100% with (Bill) about taking the number out here
and perhaps identifying it, you know, later in the document.

Bill Hamilton:	We're having discussions about the rapid intervention
later, at some point later today, I'll - according to the agenda.

(Ken Botno):	This is (Ken) and I've listened very carefully to what
you're saying and perhaps in the definition, we may want to put
something such as, "Sufficient numbers based on the incident."

	And what that does, as you just said, as the incident gets bigger, we
increase the numbers based on the (unintelligible) plan. It doesn’t
tie you to a number per se, but it indicates that the bigger the
incident, the more complex the incident, the more people you should have
in your…

Man:	But it would still be the team.

(Ken Botno):	Right.

Man:	And so…

(Ken Botno):	And then in the definition if you would put a sufficient
numbers based on the incident, yada yada yada, it would imply to me that
if it gets bigger, I need more.

	But you could start off with a team. A simple mobile home fire or
something, probably sufficient. But if you get into a big house or
hotel, multi-story or something of this nature, then you want to
increase it or have multiple teams based on the size of the incidents.

	Does that help any? Does that…

((Crosstalk))

(Ken Botno):	A little better.

(Matt Debut):	(Ken), this is (Matt) (unintelligible). (Ken), just
(unintelligible) what I would offer is just that here in the definition
I think simpler is probably better. And that we could address it - we
could address what you're talking about, the complexity analysis in the
actual section under rapid intervention.

(Ken Botno):	(Unintelligible) It's a numbers game but it gives you - it
tells you, you have to have - bigger is better.

(Matt Debut):	Right.

(Ken Botno):	Okay.

(Matt Debut):	I think it's really just (unintelligible) I mean the
definition just defines what a team is. And that there is a team there.

Man:	All right. We're good with (Bill)'s recommendation.

Man:	Well if (unintelligible) recommendation is to hold off making a
decision until later.

Man:	Yes.

Man:	(Bill)'s really good at that.

Bill Hamilton:	All right so - find out where's my - lost my page number
(unintelligible). All right finding (unintelligible) okay that's
(unintelligible).

	Okay. Skilled support. So a Skilled Support Worker, and this is the
definition that was, let's see. Skilled Support Worker. Wait a minute. I
have no employer. Oh we didn't change employer, we kept employer.
Employer didn't change from the last meeting, right?

	Yes. That one was fine. Everybody seemed to be fine with that before.
We did add - we did - made some changes to Skilled Support Worker. I
think Spencer's group worked on it.

Man:	(Unintelligible) Working.

Bill Hamilton:	I know. It's not. Sorry, these are changes made based on
the - that I made based on the committee discussion in May.

	And so it now says, "An employee of a Skilled Support Employer who is
skilled in certain tasks or disciplines that can support an ESO, such as
operators of tow vehicles, mechanized service equipment, or digging
equipment, craning and hoisting equipment, qualified healthcare
professionals, technical experts, et cetera."

	"Who is needed temporarily to preform immediate emergency support work
that cannot reasonably be performed in a timely fashion by an ESO
responder, and who will be, or may be exposed to the hazards of an
emergency incident scene."

	So those are the changes we made based on what you guys talked about in
May.

Man:	Switched (unintelligible).

Bill Hamilton:	We okay? Not okay? Going to be okay? Will be?

Man:	(Unintelligible)

Bill Hamilton:	Where's will be. Or who will be.

Man:	Yes. (Unintelligible)

Bill Hamilton:	Will be or maybe? Oh, yes. We know some will be.

	Okay. Next is…

Man:	Hey, (Bill), can you just stop for a minute? I know we didn't talk
about it but I just want some clarification. Do we really need an
(unintelligible) napping on the couch in front of the TV? Do we really
need that?

Bill Hamilton:	Oh.

Man:	I'm just asking.

Bill Hamilton:	No, that's (unintelligible).

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Is that part of the regulatory definition?

Bill Hamilton:	No, you're right. I put that in there for informational
purposes. 

Man:	Just asking a question. 

Bill Hamilton:	Just a little bit of - yes you're right, I'll take that
out. But yes, you know. I've long days, I write silly stuff in there.

((Crosstalk))

Woman:	Would crew quarters be a better term? Well, "Sleeping area" just
seems to be an odd definition in a document like this, but.

Bill Hamilton:	Well later on we talk about a facility that has sleeping
and living areas, needing, you know, (unintelligible), sprinklers, and
fire alarms, and that - smoke detection and that type of thing. Whereas
I think crew quarters could be…

Woman:	Too generic.

Bill Hamilton:	Yes.

Woman:	Okay.

Man:	(Unintelligible)

Bill Hamilton:	You know because specifically with the, you know,
(unintelligible) with the sprinklers over the sleeping,
(unintelligible). So I will take out, "napping."

	God I did it again, what am I doing?

Man:	That's because (unintelligible) 

Bill Hamilton:	Going too far with it.

Man:	No just take that (unintelligible) then go back down.

Bill Hamilton:	Well. You would think I'd know how to do this better.

Rick Ingram:	I think you're doing fine.

Bill Hamilton:	Okay. Next one (unintelligible).

(Chris Tremlin):	This is (Chris). I've got a question regarding the
skilled support definition. Says, "Temporarily". Who would to
temporarily preform. Most emergency situations, there's going to be
skilled support people there for quite a while.

	I wasn't at May's meeting so I apologize. But maybe some clarification
on when we came up with, "Temporarily." Nobody's permanent on an
emergency site. I mean it's, you know, they got to be there for most of
the time that's - no matter what's going on.

Rick Ingram:	Whether you're needed or not needed. "Temporarily" can come
out. I agree with that. (Unintelligible) Get two more, you get a gold
star.

Bill Hamilton:	Oh, my gosh. Oh, into the definition of spontaneous -
I'll need somebody to volunteer. I did get the American Red Cross in
community search, that part right in that one.

	So, "Spontaneous unaffiliated volunteer is a skilled or unskilled
worker who shows up to help in a disaster site response effort. Persons
not affiliated with any disaster support groups, such as but not limited
to, The American Red Cross, Community Emergency Response Teams CERT, or
non-governmental organization NGO. This person may or may not have
training."

Rick Ingram:	I would consider changing, "Shows up" to, "Is willing."

Man:	If I could, Rick. I would offer - what we're really identifying are
individuals who self-dispatch, is what we're really talking about. As
opposed to willing. 

	We may have spontaneous - spontaneous unaffiliated volunteers may be
willing all over the country to come to a scene and help, but don't
self-dispatch. And I think that the intent of this is, people that
actually show up at the scene, or who arrive at the scene.

	I was going to recommend, that at the end of the next sentence, after,
"This person may or may not have training." I would put a sentence that
says, "This individual self-dispatches to the scene, and was not - and
has not been requested by the ESO."

Rick Ingram:	So I have trouble with the, "Shows up." How about arrives?

Man:	Will arrive?

Rick Ingram:	Arrives.

Man:	Yes.

(Chris Tremlin):	This is (Chris Tremlin). Maybe you can add that in
there after - right after, "This person is self-dispatched and not
affiliated."

(Matt Debut):	Oh okay. On sentence number two. This is (Matt Debut).
You're saying on sentence number two, this person self-dispatches and is
not affiliated?

(Chris Tremlin):	And is not affiliated. Yes.

Man:	I would accept that as a friendly amendment.

Victor Stagnaro:	Excuse me, this is Victor. And maybe this is too
word-smithy but self-dispatched as opposed to self-deployed. Dispatch,
self, yes, self-deployed is fine.

Man:	Okay. Absolutely Chief.

Rick Ingram:	(Unintelligible) After, "Arrives", if we should delete the,
"Up." "Worker who arrives." Acceptable.

(Matt Debut):	My only—this is (Matt) (unintelligible). My only other
question is, do we want to limit it to, "Disaster site response effort"
or do we want to say, "Emergency incident"?

Woman:	I think that needs to be fixed. Could you just - I'm just kind of
worse at this. It's, "Skilled or unskilled worker who's self-deployed to
a disaster site." And then the next sentence is making the point that
they're not affiliated.

	So I think it's saying the same thing. They arrive - I think you can
just make the first sentence more meaningful by just stating that they
self-deployed to the site. And then the second sentence can say that
they're not affiliated with any particular group.

(Ken Botno):	And perhaps (unintelligible)…

Bill Hamilton:	Is this kind of what you're (unintelligible) first
sentence.

Woman:	Right, right.

(Ken Botno):	A better choice of words for, "Help" would be to, "Assist."

Bill Hamilton:	All right. I think we're going to strike that sentence.

Man:	Yes. Make it - is that (unintelligible).

Woman:	Self-deploys to assist at an incident or disaster site. And then
you can delete, "Self-deployed."

Rick Ingram:	I think we're getting there now.

Man:	I think it's a lot more (unintelligible).

Rick Ingram:	Okay. That's much better.

Woman:	Good typing skills.

Bill Hamilton:	If we weren't on the record, I would tell you about the
time that my typing skills were so bad that (Sarah) decided she would
take over the computer. But since we're on the record, I won't tell you
that story.

	All right. So that's the end of the definitions. I did - let's see. I
did add (unintelligible) added is acronyms NGO for non-governmental
organization, FCDA, and the Spontaneous - SUV is for Spontaneous
Unaffiliated Volunteers.

Man:	I guess that along the way we could add (unintelligible) and
probably some others too.

Bill Hamilton:	I'll have to come back to that. I'll come back to that.
Okay.

	Okay. So then moving on to E. We had discussed in a previous meeting it
being community or facility vulnerability and risk assessment. And so
every time (unintelligible) facility after the community and so
accepting - accept all of those.

Woman:	I thought we were changing that.

Bill Hamilton:	Yes, we…

Man:	That's the- I thought we were going to go community comma
(unintelligible).

Rick Ingram:	Oh that's right. You guys were…

((Crosstalk))

Victor Stagnaro:	Actually, this is Victor. I recall (Sarah) had offered
to - OSHA was going to…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Oh, yes. And Kurt said he would - he'd send something. And the…

Man:	Oh, I (unintelligible) Kurt.

Man:	Oh. Well.

Bill Hamilton:	So (unintelligible).

Man:	I'm not …

Kurt Voigt:	Go ahead.

Man:	Well I think - this is the one from Arizona, like how can you
discuss that or was the problem that we had with it yesterday was that
it means either or you as a community or building. In some cases it
doesn't make sense because, you know, I think you would give them the
flexibility to run private fire brigades and fire departments. A lot of
times they're confined just to a plant. 

	In this case I thought we talked about the B community comma with
building vulnerability and risk assessment for the purpose since that's
what I thought we were going to talk about and then you guys were going
to go back to see if that met the requirements and we did not do that so
I guess we'll have to still talk about that. Kurt did send, he sent me
something and I'll read it. I'm not sure how this fits when we're trying
to use the term and unfortunately Kurt you haven't been through all of
the different variations of this thing as we worked it for a while but
it says, and so it uses a new acronym. Maybe you should explain it.

Kurt Voigt:	This is Kurt Voigt. What I did is I took out of interstate
1250 for risk assessment and it does use a different acronym there but
that wasn't my intent for you to change that that was keep the ESO.

Man:	Oh, okay.

Kurt Voigt:	But it would be ESO should conduct a risk - it doesn't
really talk about committee or facility at all. It's ESO should conduct
a risk assessment for the purpose of identifying and analyzing risks to
the ESO, to those whom it is responsible and to those whom it is
accountable. Basically your authority having jurisdiction and your
response is covered in facility and community whether you're an
industrial brigade or facility or you're a municipal department and
you're talking about your responses to the community, just a suggestion.


Rick Ingram:	I have another comment that I think I want to suggest that
we add pre-incident plan in I because - so you do the vulnerability and
risk assessment of hazards and then a pre-incident plan and just reading
through the document, when we were going through the definition, I don't
think we have a very clear chronological view of what we're expecting.
So we know we want to do the community and facility vulnerability and
risk assessment within this response area but we also want them to do a
pre-incident plan. 

	That was what was missing in the city of West Texas if I'm not
mistaken. So those three things like a three-legged stool and we're
missing a leg here. It's just my opinion so I'll just throw that out
there for conversation. This is Rick, by the way. 

Victor Stagnaro:	Rick, this is Victor. If you looked further, and maybe
you did and maybe you decided you want it earlier in the document but we
did address pre-incident planning in the document which it addresses J
which is now K. 

Rick Ingram:	I did see that but I really think that what we're expecting
them to do is, you know, vulnerability and risk assessment and a
pre-incident, they use that to build a pre-incident plan. I think it
deserves mention in here closer to the front of that section and then we
can refer this to J but all I'm asking for is that term inserted here
and whether or not anybody else agrees with that is up for discussion.
I'm going to challenge a little bit. I'll throw things out for
discussion but it's up to the team, not me. This is democracy, not a
dictatorship.

(Matt Jebby):	This is (Matt Jebby). Rick, to your point, the
pre-incident plans are typically granular level documents that live at a
level different than the community and vulnerability risk assessment
which forms the basis of the ESO's scope of operation. So the
vulnerability and risk assessment process is designed to identify, okay
these are the vulnerabilities and risks that we face in our community.
This is what we're prepared to provide in response to those risks. 

	I think that if the ESO, for example if the ESO is only going to
provide emergency medical services within a given community then the
need to do a pre-incident plan is moot from that perspective. So I think
that the pre-incident plan is driven by the determination of the ESO,
ESO's decision about what services it's going to provide. You're
absolutely right, in West Texas, the fire department had no pre-incident
plan for that building, did not know what was in there, didn't know what
the hazards were and I recognize that fact.

Rick Ingram:	Or how to properly respond.

(Matt Jebby):	How to deal with it, what to do with it, whether, you
know, just to keep people away from it and let the building burn and
pull the town out of the way, absolutely. I think here, I think we do
address it later on as Victor identified and I think it's really driven
off of what the ESO decides it's going to provide to its community.

Rick Ingram:	You're the expert. I'm just looking at it from a practical
stance from an outsider view. When we get to the section that has
pre-incident plan, I think we really need to take a close look at that,
though in section J today. I think we need to clarify that. That's fine,
I just wanted to ask. 

Bill Hamilton:	I see, so Bill Hamilton again, so as we discussed
yesterday that (Amy) and I would get together and kind of wordsmith
this, how we're going to do this community or facility vulnerability and
risk assessment. I think at this point we should table discussion on
that and (Amy) and I will talk about it. She seems to have a good idea
back there that she's going to write something that we can kind of kick
around and bring back either later today or tomorrow and just keep going
through with some of the other things, keep moving forward.

Victor Stagnaro:	(Bill), before you move forward, this is Victor. Just I
want to add - made mention of this yesterday that in the current
version, we lost the ESO's requirement to forecast the types of skilled
support the ESO anticipates it will need so just make sure in your
redoing that that we include that.

Man:	Wait, I'm sorry.

Victor Stagnaro:	It should probably be in E1, maybe either seven or
eight, Roman numeral seven or eight, somewhere in that area, yes. 

Man:	Okay.

Victor Stagnaro:	We want to include that wording and that was in.

Man:	That was in a previous iteration that somehow got lost in the one
that you currently have.

Man:	Yes, well.

Man:	Okay, sorry.

Man:	No, it's probably.

Man:	(Unintelligible). Now I lost my cursor.

Bill Hamilton:	Preplanned - the ESO will forecast the types of skilled
support.

Man:	(Unintelligible) started typing.

Bill Hamilton:	The ESO anticipates it will need for the purposes or for
the purpose of ensuring the skilled support employers or employer is
advised of likely responses and you may want to bring up the wording but
that's the intention. 

Man:	Victor, just a spot clarification, I'm a little weak in this area
so, what it tells me when I read it is I have acting (unintelligible)
plan and I've done my pre-incident plan and I've come up with a plan so
if it all goes to heck then I will need this that and the other and part
of my plan for that facility I should identify the SSEs or types of SSEs
and get in contact with them and set up a program so if it happens I
will call you to bring X equipment and Y, is that the intent of our
meeting?

Victor Stagnaro:	Yes, this is Victor again. That is the intent and if I
recall correctly, (Andy) brought up this issue. His concern was that
ESOs would be called to a scene and never have any understanding as to
what they're required to do so this would be working that just as you
mentioned. As I work through the plan I realize that if this is the type
of incident I need to respond to, I'm going to need this type of skilled
support and I'll reach out to them maybe as we go through, make sure
they have the types of training that's required and have some prep work
so they're prepared to respond. 

Man:	What I was thinking was, asking for clarification, thank you.

Victor Stagnaro:	You're welcome. 

Bill Hamilton:	All right so it says the ESO shall forecast the types of
skilled support the ESO anticipates it will need for the purpose of
ensuring the SSE is advised of likely responses. 

(Rick Gilmore):	(Rick Gilmore), I guess I'm interested in the definition
here because if I look at it, this was supposed to be, I thought, a
review or a forecast of what type that they needed, so do they need
cranes, do they need tow trucks, do they need, you know, not necessarily
to advise the likely responders. I think that will come along later, but
to me, (Bill), it seemed to me like this definition was intended that
you try to forecast the type of SSEs that you're going to need to
perform the regulated task that you're into. 

	So I'm just, I think we're combining two different elements here in the
definition. First element is the need to identify what you need and the
second element which I think should come in more of the operational text
is that the ESO advises the SSEs of what their requirements are but
that's just my own thought. If we could maybe look at that definition a
little further?

Bill Hamilton:	I'm not so sure, forecast, maybe identify? Okay any other
thoughts about that, Miss (Kathy)?

(Kathy Robinson):	If I read that, (Kathy Robinson), if I read that
sentence without the benefit of this discussion, I would have no idea
what it meant so I think that identify might be a better term than
forecast and whether deployment might be a better word than response. I
don't feel strongly about either.

Bill Hamilton:	And, Bill Hamilton, I'm wondering if this doesn't
actually belong as part of the pre-incident planning process which is on
page 23 or thereabouts. I mean, this would be part of the pre-plan, not
necessarily the overall community or facility risk assessment. Wouldn't
it be as I'm doing individual pre-plans saying oh yes because let the
anvil manufacturer that would be part of the individual pre-plan know
that you need a crane or a backhoe to move something. 

Rick Ingram:	I think we've got a few things mixed together here.

Victor Stagnaro:	Yes, this is Victor. I'm not overly concerned. I think
the intent is to make sure that the ESO connects with skilled support
workers and advises them of the types of incidents that are going to be
required should there be an event there. So however that's accomplished,
I think there was a sense that as part of the vulnerability assessment
that they would begin to formulate or forecast or determine the types of
skilled support that would begin at that level and then clearly I think,
you know, we might want to visit it again at the pre-incident planning
piece for each individual pre-incident plan. 

(Matt Jebby):	This is (Matt), I just wanted to agree with Victor and
just, I think it really does speak to the global need to ensure that
ESOs know where they're going to get resources from in the event they
may need them kind of on a global scale as opposed to an incident
specific scale. I think it is likely well positioned here insofar as
it's part of that overall planning process for the community or the
facility. I think that when you do pre-plan it should identify where
you're going to get those things from but this would be more globally,
knowing that you can't identify every circumstance that you may
encounter.

Man:	I'm sorry, is that not covered here in three where the ESO
evaluates the resources needed including personnel and equipment for
mitigation of emergency incident and the intent of that on the one hand
is to identify the types of service that they're capable of performing
and maybe we need something there that says what they can't, and well we
do have something somewhere. 

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor again. I think the real intent again is
to make that connection with ESOs so without that sentence in there I
think the concern is that that would be lost. So the ESO may determine
what resources are needed but if there's never that connection made with
an ESO to say this is what I might need you for, that's the important
component that this is trying to address.

Rick Ingram:	This is Rick, so if we're talking about trying to
communicate this should we have some language in there that says
communicate orally or written to that SSE so that loop's closed up?

(Lamar Bird):	This is (Lamar Bird). I was wondering, getting to number
three there, evaluating resources needed including personnel, if we
added including SSE support or something to that effect to loop SSE,
that we're asking the ESO, in determining what personnel needs or
resource needs it'll have that they include consideration of what SSE
support is needed in terms of establishing the scope of services that
they'll provide. 

(Ken Botno):	And also as a part of that, this is (Ken Botno), could
perhaps put a period after anticipate they will need. Anticipation of
these needs will then be communicated to SSEs in the area or whatever,
you know, term we can come up with and it communicates it, I mean Mr.
(Grey) said it closes the loop that, we didn't only figure out what we
need, but we've talked to the people that can support it and we've made
arrangements with them already and that might be a way to get it all
done. 

Rick Ingram:	I think this whole section here, E, I think we're kind of
going back and forth and it's almost a little bit redundant, some of
this information. I know we're all the way down to three here, but going
back one, Roman numeral four, you know, there's some of the same
information in here. I'm just a little bit confused about this. With all
due respect, it doesn't seem to flow very well to me. I don't mean to
slow us down but this is probably the most important section in the
whole document and I think it deserves us to go through not just the red
corrected text but maybe the entire text on this one.

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor, I know that, I guess we were at a point
where we were going to have (Bill) and the team there redo this section
to make sure all of the proper intents were worded appropriately and
then have us come back and review it so I would recommend maybe that,
you know, we let that team have a crack at it.

Man:	And then look at it again.

Victor Stagnaro:	And then look at it again either today or tomorrow.

Rick Ingram:	I don't think we reviewed Roman numeral four there at all.
I think we skipped by that for some reason. If we could just take a look
at that one I'd risk (unintelligible) for the rest of the day if you
don't mind. If we don't get too frustrated it'll be all right. I'll buy
you a cup of coffee later.

Man:	I'm not frustrated at all. I'm glad that this interaction is
occurring. So we've got two plans, so we mentioned plan in this section,
the community or facility vulnerability and risk assessment shall
include coordinated planning with the whole community and then IE
incident that exceeds resources of ESO and then the plan will include
working or cooperating so I think that's a little bit confusing that
we've mentioned plan here and then we've got pre-incident plan later. So
I think we need to clarify that just a little bit. 

	Are we talking about the community or facility vulnerability and risk
assessment plan here and then a pre-incident plan later or could you
help clarify that for me if you don't mind, one of you distinguished
experts (unintelligible). Like the plan in that second sentence there,
are we talking about a pre-incident plan or are we talking about the
facility vulnerability and risk assessment plan?

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor, are you in section?

Man:	I'm on page 9, section one, Roman numeral four, second sentence.

Victor Stagnaro:	Okay.

Man:	If I have an incident like (Kathy) did earlier, if I’m reading
this for the first time outsider, I'm lost at this point. I'm a little
bit lost, I just want to make sure that we clarify that. 

Victor Stagnaro:	Okay, those are great points. This is Victor again. So
where it says the plan it probably should say the emergency services or
the vulnerability and risk assessment will include working with and
cooperating with government agencies and NGOs. Does that clarify that?

Man:	That helps me, just the word the plan.

Victor Stagnaro:	Correct, yes that was a great catch, absolutely.

Man:	So do I get a gold star?

Victor Stagnaro:	Yes.

Mark Hagemann:	This is Mark, real quick, I think several of these
paragraphs in here, we go back and forth with calling it vulnerability
and risk assessment and vulnerability and risk assessment plan so I
think just cleaning up some of the language would clarify what is meant
by plan and so I think as we go through it, that's some of the cleaning
up we can do to make sure that the language is consistent in here.

Man:	I think if we could make a decision as a committee that would take
some heat off of you guys and then we could get past this, and with all
due respect, Mark, if I'm not mistaken, Victor made a suggestion to,
instead of the plan.

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor again. It should read the vulnerability
and risk assessment will include working with and cooperating
(unintelligible) plan and if we want to say vulnerability and risk
assessment plan every time or just, you know, they'll leave that out.

Mark Hagemann:	So for example if you look at I, we call it a community
or facility vulnerability and risk assessment and then double I we call
it the vulnerability and risk assessment plan so that's my point is
we're inconsistent in here of what we're calling it and that could be
easily cleaned up.

Man:	I think if we just take out plan at this point and add, you know,
just like Victor suggested.

Man:	This is truly not a plan. It is an assessment. The VIP is the plan.
We could square them up, it separates and makes it easier.

Man:	We just want to keep it in chronological order as far as what we're
expecting the folks to do, you know, so to speak at that point. We can
clarify this now and go on and we don't have to keep going back and
forth because we're going to be out of time. 

Man:	In triple I we have plan again and it probably should read the
vulnerability and risk assessment (unintelligible). This is the planning
process. We should kind of keep that verbiage the same. 

Man:	Does that all make sense to the team? Can we get some head nods
here? 

Man:	Yes.

Man:	So we're all right. So (unintelligible) exists but it's 10:30 and
we might be ready for a break. 

Man:	Head nod, good assumption there. 

Man:	So 15 minutes? Thank you very much.

Rick Ingram:	Let's go ahead and reconvene. This is Rick Ingram, so
during the break, and it was a great discussion before the break but I
was just thinking, and again I'll just ask for a little bit of latitude
here but I was thinking about what is the chronological order of what
we're trying to get done here. What's the proper chronological order,
what makes sense, and just to try to simplify this just a little bit and
take redundancy in the document so that a person that's reading this for
the first time, the end users again like we said when we were beginning
the meeting, can look at this and then they'll have a good flow. 

	So for this section E, probably the most important section that we have
in the entire document, that's what everything is built on. I wanted to
make sure that we had a consensus. These are my notes (Bill) was kind
enough to top up there but (Lamar) and I wanted to see if we can have a
consensus on the chronological order of what we're trying to get done
here for the ESOs. So the first thing is we have to review the
vulnerability of the communities. I know we're saying that in other
words but, you know, from a health and safety professional perspective
this is how we have to do things. 

	So you review the vulnerability of the community and what can kill
people or what can kill first responders, so you make that list and then
you assess the risk of each one of those. Then the ESO considers what
services they have, what services can or will they perform or what will
they not perform, other services that they need and then from that
develop a pre-incident plan to deal with those potential incidents and
those vulnerabilities. Does that make sense to everybody in that order? 

	This is not anything set in stone, this is just conversation and then
if we can get this done, this might not be a comprehensive list. There
might be other things that we need to add or rearrange, whatever. Again,
this is a democracy, not a dictatorship so then I think (Andy) has a few
things to say and then we'll turn it back over to the subcommittee to
make sure that we have everything in that right order in this section.
So with that, now I'm going to be quiet and let other people speak so
thoughtfully consider this and tell us what you think, (Ian)?

(Ian):	I've nothing to say. I'm just giving you a thumbs up. I'm good
with it.

Rick Ingram:	Okay.

(Ian):	It makes sense (unintelligible).

Rick Ingram:	Okay. Bill Warren is giving a thumbs up for the record.
Anyone else, we're depending on your folks. Go ahead.

Man:	You stated the services that we can perform, Mr. Warren, did you
want to add in that can or cannot at that point because, you know, that
was the identification.

Rick Ingram:	I think so, yes. 

(Mark James):	(Mark James), or provide.

Rick Ingram:	Right, or provide, yes. We can say provide instead of
perform. Okay, anybody else?

Man:	Maybe other services needed instead of we need?

Rick Ingram:	Okay, we all realize that's potentially needed according to
the hazards or the risk, anybody else? I'm going to go around the room
and ask everybody if you're happy with this, (Lemar), (Andy)?

(Andy):	Sure.

Rick Ingram:	Mark?

Mark Hagemann:	Yes.

Rick Ingram:	And you can comment as you need to.

Bill Warren:	Yes I'm good, this is Bill Warren and I'm good with it. 

Rick Ingram:	Okay, (Matt), any comments?

(Matt Debut):	Yes I'm fine.

Rick Ingram:	Okay, (Bill), (Chris)?

(Bill):	I'm fine.

Rick Ingram:	Okay, Spencer?

Spencer Schwegler:	Okay.

Rick Ingram:	Kurt?

Kurt Voigt:	I just had a question (unintelligible), when you're talking
about reviewing vulnerability, are you identifying risk at that point,
the risks identifying?

Rick Ingram:	I think that goes together actually but, you know, we can
open that up for comment. So in my mind what the vulnerability means,
and again using the city of West Texas for an example, what can kill
people in the community? What makes that community whether it's
structures, occupants vulnerable, or plant, whatever vulnerable to
disaster? (Kathy), any comments?

(Kathy Robinson):	I'm good.

Rick Ingram:	Lisa?

Lisa Delaney:	I think it logically flows and I appreciate your effort in
trying to link sort of what may be these disparate activities and so I
think earlier before the break you mentioned some cross-referencing and
providing those linkages of how this one activity flows to the next
activity, connecting the dots so I think that's what you're getting at
and I'm in favor of it.

Rick Ingram:	Okay, (Ken) and Grady?

Grady DeVilbiss:	Yes, I'm good with it.

Rick Ingram:	Okay so we have unanimous and (Jenny), are you okay with
it?

(Jenny):	I'm okay.

Rick Ingram:	(Dennis), are you okay? I like where you guys, all right
thank you very much so (Andy).

(Andy):	Sure and this was, you know, a side conversation during the
break. I appreciate the temptation to wordsmith and knock off every
rough edge in the wording because I am one of those people who believe
that every word matters but having said that, to borrow a phrase from
(Matt), you know we're getting wrapped around the axle a little bit and
spending a lot of time wordsmithing when really what we need most are
the policy discussions about this is what we think should happen. 

	This is the way we think it should happen, this is what we think it
looks like or doesn't look like, so kind of the 20,000 foot level and if
we can get through all of that and then we have time left at the end to
wordsmith, I think that would be great but that's what matters most to
us because our folks will go back after, you know, we're done with this
process, after the full (maypoc) committee does its piece and we'll
review the red text with our lawyers and with our standards writers and
make sure that it's legally enforceable and consistent terminology and
everything flows.

	And even with our folks who, you know, spend a lot of time doing this,
you know, we have some draft regulations that are on their 40th version
and it takes a long time and this is not the place to spend your time
and effort doing this so if we can focus.

	As long as we get the sense of what you're trying to accomplish, that's
what matters most and let's try and not quibble over every little word
and then we can always come back either tomorrow or, you know, on the
last meeting in September and try and polish, you know, the rough edges
more if we have time. Does that sound reasonable to everybody? It's
really hard to resist that temptation.

(Matt Debut):	Yes, this is (Matt), I was speaking for myself, you know.
I get wrapped around the axle, you know, in the effort to get, you know,
the perfect we interfere with the ability to get, you know, the very
good so I'm as guilty of that as anything at all so thanks.

Rick Ingram:	Thank you very much and I had one other thing that I'd like
to - just a fundamental question here and that is, considering this
chronological order, and I know we've talked about this before but we
have the pre-incident plan all the way down in K now and is that the
proper place for it, first of all and then, and these are big ticket
items, again I'm not trying to wrap us around the axle and I think we
have some of the same issues here in this section so, you know, the
title of this is pre-incident planning instead of pre-incident plan but
we have the definition that says pre-incident plan. 

	So I'd just like for folks to consider that a little bit, so again if
you're an ESO, the head of an ESO reading this for the first time
because that's who's going to be dealing with this, is that the right
place for this and I think this section also needs quite a bit of work.
So what we had talked about before the break was giving this section E
and maybe K as well, the pre-incident plan, back to the subcommittee to
work through instead of us trying to work it out now here for the sake
of time. 

	Is that what everybody intended, (Andy) and (Bill) and Victor? I think,
Victor, you led this. I think first of all, I also want to say, this
does not take anything away from the work that has been done on this.
All we're doing now, and we're able to begin the refining process
because the work that has already been done. (Bill) and his team,
everybody that's worked on this up to this point, all we're doing is
refining it which is a great place to be so thank you very, very much
for the hard work.

Victor Stagnaro:	You're welcome. This is Victor and I think the entire
group did a fantastic job.

Rick Ingram:	Absolutely.

Victor Stagnaro:	And I think our intent was exactly what is happening,
to put forth a document that would have some good discussion because we
understand the importance of this component for the entire document.
Everything is hinging on, whether it's the training, the pre-incident
planning, everything hinges on this piece so it's very important for us
to get it right so that's certainly our intent. We're glad to work with
the OSHA folks and make sure that we get it in that particular order as
you outlined and whatever we can do to keep this moving forward.

(Andy):	Let me.

Victor Stagnaro:	Go ahead.

(Andy):	Let me offer an alternate perspective. This is (Andy). I think I
can make an argument for keeping pre-incident planning here and maybe
even making it further down in the document because if you look, you
start at the very broad which is planning for the community and then
training across the community, you know across all of the different
hazards and all of your big policies and procedures and the pre-incident
planning is really, how do we do this particular building, this
particular fixed facility, this particular railway, you know, but a
particular hazard.

	And so I would argue that that probably should come after the more
broad how do we prepare and plan and organize in this department because
that's closer to the incident management level of detail than it is the
broad community planning and training level.

Rick Ingram:	So I'm going to give an alternate view just for the sake of
discussion. So you won't know what PPE you might need or other services
that you might need until you have a pre-incident plan for those
facilities so I would argue that when you build your plan, you've taken
everything into consideration, you're building your plan and then you
decide what PPE equipment, et cetera that you need so you can argue
that.

(Andy):	No, I think it's actually backwards. I think when you do your
community vulnerability assessment and you say these are the services
that we provide or will not provide, that determines what PPE you buy
and now when I say this is what we will do or not do and this is what
we're plan trained and equipped to do, now when I get to the facility I
either say we're going in or we're doing a surround and drown based on
all of the other stuff that's happened and so my pre-incident plan
should follow all of the other.

	Here's the training and equipment that I'm willing to buy and provide
and that chooses your tactics and strategy for, you know, the individual
incidents.

Rick Ingram:	Okay, I can see that. Okay, so do we have a consensus on
that view or do we need to - okay so the experts are all saying (Andy)'s
right.

Man:	I agree with (Andy) on this one and I think he was (unintelligible)
what I was trying to explain earlier but he did it much better than I
did and just that the pre-incident planning is site-specific as opposed
to comprehensive vulnerability risk assessment for the community because
that's going to drive. You know, if you've got a river that runs through
your community, are you going to do swift water, yes or no? 

	If you don't have a river that runs through your community, you don't
need to worry about making that decision about whether or not you're
going to do that. I think that the vulnerability and risk assessment is
for the global picture. Pre-incident planning is critical, absolutely
essential, there's no question about it. I think it's correctly placed
because it's a tool for the incident commander. (Andy) is 100% right.

Rick Ingram:	Okay, any other discussion on that? (Ken)?

(Ken Botno):	I could go either way.

Rick Ingram:	All right.

(Ken Botno):	Where we're at is it's an operational plan and it's not an
administrative plan I think.

Rick Ingram:	Okay, I just wanted to bring that up so if I have questions
on it, maybe we can avoid a letter of interpretation later. Okay, good
discussion, thank you for your patience. So let's get our action item
together for this, we can document our action item. So, Victor, are you
going to be leading that subcommittee, subgroup?

Victor Stagnaro:	Yes, that'll be fine.

Rick Ingram:	And who is willing to work with you on that?

Victor Stagnaro:	Well we have an established subcommittee with Grady,
(Ken Pentenot), Pat Morrison and (Matt) so unless you guys are tired of
hearing about it, you know, we're certainly happy to take some more
folks on but that's the existing committee at the moment. Now this is
the establishment of emergency services capability and that's what that
group has been focusing on so if you wanted a different group to do
pre-incident plan.

Rick Ingram:	No.

Victor Stagnaro:	Okay.

Rick Ingram:	And would you look at the pre-incident plan section as
well?

Victor Stagnaro:	Of course.

Rick Ingram:	So this subcommittee is going to review sections E, the
establishment of emergency service capability and I believe we have it
as K now, the pre-incident plan, correct?

Victor Stagnaro:	Yes.

Rick Ingram:	And so it's going to be led by Victor and then we have
Grady, Pat, (Matt), and (Ken) and was there someone else?

Victor Stagnaro:	(Matt), (Ken), Grady and Pat, yes.

Rick Ingram:	Okay, would anybody else like to volunteer to help them? I
bet they would not turn you down, (Matt) or somebody, no (Matt)'s on
there already.

Kurt Voigt:	This is Kurt Voigt, I'd like to help out if I could.

Rick Ingram:	Kurt, all right so thanks and then you'll be working with
(Bill) and the OSHA folks on that one.

Kurt Voigt:	Correct.

Rick Ingram:	So thank you very much.

(Andy):	So, Rick, let me suggest, and this is based off a side
conversation with (Lemar) during the break, one of the things I need to
add somewhere up in this, you know, earlier section for emergency
service capability or your planning is something that ties into
arranging with a skilled support employer for the services provided and
so that concept is kind of parallel to the mutual aid concept of we've
done this vulnerability assessment, we've decided these are the services
that we're going to provide. 

	We know we're going to need crane operators or welders and cutters, you
know, for different types of operations because we're going to provide
that service and somewhere in there we need a handoff that says we need
to develop agreements with skilled support employers in that early part,
that's the fire department or the emergency service organization's
responsibility so that then they will go out and have the conversation
with the skilled support employers and tie into, you know, the
conversation that we were just having earlier this morning.

	So it's that transfer of knowledge, transfer of information and setting
up an agreement in advance.

Rick Ingram:	So it sounds like we need to go back up to that list and
add develop agreements with SSEs. (Bill), if you don't mind going back
up to our list. 

Victor Stagnaro:	Yes, this is Victor, (Andy), you won't see it in that
document, it's actually why we're here because we were adding a
component related to that handoff and the forecast or determining, an
ESO's requirement to determine when an SSE is needed or (unintelligible)
is required and to make that connection but we've got that already.

(Andy):	Got it. You've got it in concept, right?

Victor Stagnaro:	Yes.

(Andy):	Perfect.

Rick Ingram:	We've got that captured in our graph document just as a
placeholder, anything else?

(Bill):	Yes, if you could load the services that we can or cannot
provide. It's just a placeholder, but I think it's a bad idea as a
placeholder for the top to actually be covered as opposed to the
specific order of them.

Rick Ingram:	All right, point well taken, though, (Bill).

((Crosstalk)) 

(Bill):	I just thought the (unintelligible) was chronological. 

Rick Ingram:	Yes, I agree, we'll mention. There we go, it's big. (Bill)
is good at that. All right so with that then said we're going to - do we
need to go through anything else in section E or are we just going to
leave that for now? (Bill) did you want to review anything else in
there?

(Bill):	Not in section E because that's all going to get reorganized per
your direction to this order.

Rick Ingram:	Okay.

(Bill):	I don't know that there's much need to go through it. We will
kind of reorganize it and address the issues that we said that we would
already do in discussions earlier and then get together with the
subgroup for them to do all their fine work.

Rick Ingram:	Okay.

(Bill):	So I don't think we need to look through E anymore.

Rick Ingram:	The next section was F, organization and risk management
plans. I think that certainly goes along with this. If you don't mind
taking a look at this as well just as part of your discussion, is that
okay if we add that to your short list of duties?

(Matt Debut):	This is (Matt). I would offer that section F is, I think
it's okay. I really do. I think it addresses the idea that within the
organization, and that's what this is focused on. This is focused on
within the organization itself, that the organization comes up with its
own internal risk management plan and honestly I mean, unless people
have significant concerns about language, I think the language in there
is actually okay.

Rick Ingram:	Okay, I agree with that, anybody else, any other comments?
Okay, so we have heads nodding affirmatively. So (Bill), I guess you can
take it away at G then if you wanted to continue, and (Lemar)
(unintelligible). Thanks for everybody's patience, by the way getting
through that.

(Bill):	The only thing we added to the G one was just a clarification to
require (unintelligible) based on the tiers, identify in accordance with
T4. I mean, you'll get asked for that.

Man:	(Bill), yesterday I recall us having a conversation about tiers
versus levels. Was that, have you taken a look at that?

Man:	The levels are the level of service that the ESO's going to
provide. The tiers has to do with the duties of the individual
responders and what they are capable of and what are assigned to do and
this is the medical requirements for the responders and based on the
tier level that the responder's going to perform, that's what the
medical requirement would be, okay.

(Bill):	Okay so are we good on responder medical requirements, yes under
G. Let's take another look at it. 

(Ken Botno):	I would ask the group to look at item 3I just for the sake
of maybe review discussion and see if that is really restrictive or
would it become problematic for the agencies involved. This is fairly
restrictive when we're saying you have to do it annually. That places a
burden on a lot of agencies.

Man:	So, (Ken), you're on page 13 number 3I?

(Ken Botno):	Yes I am.

(Andy):	(Ken), this is (Andy), what I'm reading and I think you're
reading something different is just that the ESO shall establish in
writing and implement a medical evaluation program for responders based
on the type and level of services established in paragraph E of this
section. Is that different, am I looking at the wrong thing?

(Ken Botno):	Yes, mine says, "Ensure each responder who engages in
emergency operations is annually qualified to meet the physical
performance requirements." It's under one.

(Andy):	Oh yes, that's in Roman numeral three, 3I, yes.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I'm sorry, I'm not following. Where are you exactly?

Man:	On two, Roman numeral three, the third paragraph down.

Man:	Yes, it's Roman numeral three, so it's 2 III where it says
qualified to meet the physical performance requirements, right. 

Rick Ingram:	So we've got medical requirements, physical performance
requirements and then medical evaluations and health and fitness are the
different sections (unintelligible).

(Ken Botno):	The language that I'm kind of thinking about or would like
to put out for some discussion, this is (Ken Botno) again, might be that
this be done on a periodic basis as determined by the AHJ rather than
annually. It just gives a little more flexibility to the system, just
putting it out on the table. 

Man:	Okay, (Matt), do you have a comment to talk about it?

(Matt Debut):	Yes, I actually do and I'm going to put it in the
starkest, most clear terms that I possibly can. What we've written into
this standard requirement that at a minimum the equipment that we carry
has to be serviced annually and verified that it actually works, I can't
envision a circumstance why we wouldn't at a minimum consider the
wellness of our folks to be something less important than that. I
understand what you're saying and it's not prescriptive in terms of how
that's done. 

	I mean the language doesn't say that there's a specific procedure that
has to be followed. It just says that the ESO is required to ensure that
they're annually qualified to meet the physical performance
requirements. That could be nothing more than putting them through a
series of work performance evaluations, throw a ladder, catch an attack
line, carry a stretcher, whatever ESO decides needs to be the minimum
physical performance requirement. It just says on an annual basis we're
going to verify that you're actually able to do that. 

Rick Ingram:	I'm okay with that concept but then I would like
explanation on that. I'm okay with that concept because that's something
we can do in house, throw a ladder, do the station, see if you can put a
pack on in two minutes. I'm good with that.

(Matt Debut):	And that's exactly what (unintelligible).

Rick Ingram:	I would like some explanation then because I'm reading it
totally different than that. 

Man:	Let me jump in before (Bill). This is a great conversation and so
this is foreshadowing two conversations that we're going to have
tomorrow. Conversation number one is I'm going to circle back to the,
you know, how small is too small and are there different things that we
should do for very small. And so this may be something where within the
medical section which is one of the bigger ticket items we come up with
smaller or very small but there are an alternative set of policies,
procedures, requirements that we could do so that's issue number one. 

	So (Ken), if you're thinking something that's different and you prefer
periodic instead of annually, you know I think that that is an
alternative that we could absolutely consider and I think if the
committee wants to make recommendations on that to NACOSH and say here
are some alternatives, that's a great thing.

	Issue number two is tomorrow we're going to start talking about what
should go in the final report from this group to NACOSH and so if there
is a paragraph that needs to be in this section, this is what we mean
that's contained in the report so captures the sentiment of this is what
this really looks like. 

	That's great and everywhere through this where you have, you know, a
paragraph or a couple of sentences that says this is what we really mean
by this. If you want it in that final report, start thinking about or
put a little star next to something to say we want some companion
language to explain what we mean by this so to capture that because I
don't think we would have any problems with what you guys just said and
we should memorialize that.

Rick Ingram:	And actually as explained by (unintelligible) (Matt),
annually I'm okay with based on those circumstances. So, you know, if
you want to do an annual physical to requalify that's on you, but also
it shouldn't be only that but can you perform the job tasks you're
assigned, you know, on a regular basis so I'm good with that. 

Man:	Cool, thank you.

Rick Ingram:	So this is Rick, one point here is that we do have in our
current list of non-mandatory appendices a medical questionnaire. I just
wanted to make that plain.

Man:	Yes, Bill Warren?

Bill Warren:	Yes, Bill Warren, (unintelligible). (Matt), I think, you
know, to just say that I really appreciate what your team did with
reorganizing the language within the medical part because it does allow
for the flexibility that I think that we need. My only concern was under
three two double I is that it does seem like it's tying back into some
form of a medical evaluation. Now as long as we can maintain at that -
based on that tier level, I think we'll be pretty good with that,
because three double wide simply indicates that there's requirement for
a medical evaluation laboratory, those kind of things. If it's tied into
the tier, I think that's acceptable. I do want to say that thank you for
the hard work you guys did and flexibilities truly needed for the
multiple sizes of agencies that we'll see out there. 

	This can (unintelligible) (Noah) (unintelligible), to kind of address
what you're talking about, as we speak we are working on a tiered level
or a various level of medicals to make a position for the National
Volunteer Fire Council. The lowest acceptable level that we're going to
propose is that of a wellness physical and questionnaire, it's not near
1582. Then we've identified three other levels that were going to only
recommend onto second level or inspect from the bottom. I see a DOT
physical. 

	The highest level of course should be the 1582. We also have a meeting
set up the next couple of days. We're going to meet a clinical
physician. And for the term we're kind of taking around for our uses
just in case JMedical and falls somewhere between DOT and 1582. That's
additions medical reach the intent of the Fire Brigade, OSHA standards.
We're looking at four things that maybe we would consider putting in a
guidance for even the tiered level responses. Their health help define
that there's more than one way to do this four different approaches. 

Man:	Okay, Spencer, you had a comment? 

Spencer Schwegler:	Yes, Spencer. Rick, you mention in that the Appendix
C there's a questionnaire, a medical questionnaire. I know that there's
a medical questionnaire in Appendix C is for the skilled support.
Personnel (unintelligible) we put in there. I was not aware there was a
medical questionnaire in there for responders. Is that - we have two
medical questionnaires, that’s medical screening questionnaire for
responders as well?

Rick Ingram:	I think we have one. If I'm not mistaken, (Kathy) and Lisa,
did you all work on that? 

(Kathy Robinson): 	I think that was taken from our NIOSH Emergency
Health Monitoring and Surveillance. That's actually a NRT technical
systems document and we pulled it from that document. 

Rick Ingram:	There's also medical questionnaire 1910134. I mean, there
is reference documents. I mean, everything in the appendices are
non-binding but there is certainly guidance documents. EDOC and at this
spector here and (Bill) I really appreciate your comment to the group
really did a good job. I think the, you know, the consensus was that for
individuals to intend to enter a hot zone, individuals who intend to
enter an ideal age, individuals who intend to engage in firefighting
activities in those activities should get a NFVA - something -an
appropriate physical commensurate with those jobs. 

	I'm not even going to say, NVF 1582. I'm just going to say they should
get a physical commensurate with those job duties. I think we all agree
on that. I think the idea is, whatever that medical evaluation is it
should encompass, you know, those things. At least from my perspective,
I think this language as it's presented gives the ESO the flexibility to
do what needs to do to meet the intent, so I agree. 

Spencer Schwegler:	That's fair enough. 

Rick Ingram: 	Okay. I have one comment. Looking at the section
holistically, and I was wondering why the fitness for duty evaluation
came after health and fitness program? I would think that the fitness
for duty evaluation would go closer to the medical evaluation. 

Man:	Can I just respond to that? I think because - if I look at fitness
for duty, I think the fact you have a firefighter or volunteer hat has
been in the system for a while, and as we all know, unfortunately, some
of our skill tech and physical ability's dropped, so gives the ESO the
opportunity to reassess that person fitness for that kind of work. At
the beginning he had been able to do it, five years later they may not
be able to do it. I think that it, from a chronological standpoint just
seems to me that - that's how I would view it anyway, Rick. 

	That it's the ability for the ESO to make a determination on whether or
not he needs to reassess the physical fitness of the folks that may or
may not be working for him. 

(Matt Debut):	I think -- and this is (Matt) -- just to echo that, it
does two things. Number one, if it comes after the health and wellness
program or health and fitness program, because obviously we want out
folks to be healthy and fit. That programing this to preclude the need
for a fitness for duty evaluation. One of the things that I think ESO
sometimes struggle with is -- I've seen this is my own volunteer
organization -- you have an individual who simply says, "I don’t want
to stop providing service," even when the ESO knows that the individual
is safe to do so. 

	This provides a backstop to request that independent look at that
individual. It's, you know, ESO's do struggle with helping members know
when it's time to say enough. The lifetime of service that they've
already given is adequate and perhaps they are no longer safe. I've had
individuals who are, you know, nearly blind who assert that they can
still drive the apparatus. The ESO struggles to independently be able to
send them for an evaluation and have somebody else, some third-party
dispatch person make that evaluation. 

	I think it's critical that that fitness for duty piece be in there and
I think it's in the right place. That fair, (Ken)? 

(Ken Botno):	Yes. What I'm last grinning about -and I'll share it with
you at the break, at another time, but my idea is a grant application
for trust I read one time. 

(Matt Debut):	Okay. 

(Ken Botno):	(Unintelligible). I thought it was (unintelligible). 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	Are there any other comments or thought about this? 

Man:	I did have a question. The fitness for duty evaluation, would that
be something that would come into play in the event a responder was
injured or experienced some kind of traumatic event?

(Matt Debut):	It could. Sometimes people call those - fitness for duty,
sometimes people call those return to duty physicals. There may be a
difference between those two things. An individual may go for a return
for duty dispatch, I'm sorry, this is just my opinions. My experience
has been that there are return to duty physicals where an individual
maybe going through a rehab course and may not be ready to return to
duty but may eventually be ready to return to duty. The return to duty
physical is that periodic check. 

	Fitness for duty is potentially service ending. It could be a point, a
terminal point in the relationship between the responder and the ESO,
based on the outcome. 

Man:	Any other questions or comments about the medical qualifications?

(Ken Botno):	This is (Ken). I'd just like to thank (Matt) and his work
group, as well for the outstanding work they did in clarifying this very
complex and very, very important issue. Nice work everybody. 

Man:	Another question about that. (Matt), you had mentioned that return
to duty is different - return to duty evaluation is different than the
fitness evaluation. Is there a need to include language in here
concerning return to duty? 

(Matt Debut):	I don’t think so, only because it's - I guess my only
observation would be that, let me think about that for as sec. 

Man:	Okay. I can say I think I agree where (Matt)'s going because we
require the periodic anyway, up to at least an annual. To me the return
to work just flows along with that periodic requirement anyway. Prior to
the firefighter or volunteer being put back into service, typically
there set for a reevaluation. Lot of times that's due to an injury, it's
due to an accident, it's due to some kind of rehabilitation that their
doing, which then follows a return to work status requirement, that
happens at the beginning. 

	I think we've really kind of captured it here with the requirement for
the annual. 

Man:	I'm not so sure. 

(Matt Debut): 	Actually, if I could take some time to engage my brain
before I engage my mouth. This is (Matt). If you look at, on Page 13,
number, roman - I'm sorry. Number three, IV. I think there's probably a
little bit of the same language I was. A medical evaluation shall be
performed following responder's outpatient exposure, illness, injury or
protected absence from the job, which is exactly what we're talking
about. 

Man:	Okay, thank you. 

(Matt Debut):	This is (Matt). I just want to make sure there were - I
don’t want to skim over this. I want to make sure that everyone has a
voice, if I could for just a second. Under Number 4, health and fitness,
I do want to make sure that everybody is, or at least there's a
consensus or an acknowledgement at least that physical assessments need
to occur periodically, not to exceed three years. At the bottom, Page
13. I just want to make sure that everybody's okay with that because
there is a requirement that goes with it. I just want to make sure that
everyone is on the same page. 

(Kathy Robinson): 	You got a little bit farther ahead of me. I just
wanted to ask, back in Section 3, if where you talk about the medical
history, physical examination laboratory test, whether there was any
consideration of assessing vaccination history? I'm just thinking about
the common ones, hepatitis and tetanus and those sorts of things. 

(Matt Debut): 	I'm with you, (Kathy). I'll defer to you as a
subject-matter expert. What immediately comes to mind for me is that
that would be included in the medical history. I mean, we could say
medical to include vaccination history? 

(Cindy):	I would be more comfortable with that. 

(Matt Debut):	Okay. I think that's a perfectly reasonable
recommendation. Under…

(Kathy Robinson):	Three. 

(Matt Debut):	…three two, II. 

(Kathy Robinson):	Thank you. 

(Matt Debut):	To include medical history, to include vaccination history
on Line 1. 

Man:	We wouldn't be getting into the HIPAA law there because it's going
to be done by a medical professional, is that correct? 

(Matt Debut):	Correct, and the other thing is, I do think there are
actually occupational requirements, based on OSHA requirements with
regard…

(Matt Debut):	Yes, under blood borne pathogens, I think there's actually
separate requirements associated with it. I think capturing it here
reminds the qualified healthcare professional to look at that. 

Rick Ingram:	How about medical and vaccination history? 

(Kathy Robinson):	Okay. Thanks, (Matt).

Man:	Thank you, (Kathy). 

Man:	Okay, we're good with that change? I see heads nodding in the
affirmative. Do you still want to do this? Okay, great. 

	Are there any other questions or comments about the medical gene
responder, medical and fitness requirements? Okay, well my colleague,
Rick is suggesting, you know, we're at a good break point and we could
take an early lunch. It's 11:40, why don’t we reconvene at 12:40. Yes,
we maybe can beat the crowd upstairs, for those who are going upstairs.
Everybody okay with that? Okay, all right. Let's do it. Thank you. 

Man:	Okay, if we could reconvene. Move forward. We did responder, so
we're at eight on Page 15. Okay, I think we stopped at H, responder
training qualifications, am I correct on that? 

(Matt Debut):	Page 13. 

Man:	Page 13? I thought we had gotten past that. 

Man:	We had just started on it, we backed up a little on it to two. 

(Matt Debut):	This is (Matt), I thought we had - I believe
(unintelligible), I apologize sir. (Terry Burn) had indicated, were
there any other general comments on the entire section on medical,
responder medical fitness requirements. I had asked just to make sure
that everybody in the room was clear, that the fitness assessment
component was set up not to exceed three years. 

Man:	Yes, bottom of Page 13. 

(Ken Botno): 	Based on the definition we use on fitness assessment,
that's appropriate, which could be just a physical assessment to keep
his job. 

(Matt Debut):	Right, otherwise I didn’t have any other comments or
questions about the section. 

Man:	Okay, I thought we were okay there, so is there anything else in G,
any other questions, comments about G? Anything we need to take another
look at? Hearing no comments. The next section would be about two thirds
of the way through Page 15. Under H, responder training and
qualifications. Bill Hamilton, the floor is yours. 

Bill Hamilton:	We didn’t have name changes other than check in the
confined space standard for language, whether or not they had it an
awareness. They didn’t, so I took that comment out. (Matt), has a
question. 

(Matt Debut):	I'm okay. It was a comment in the written version that was
sent out. This is (Matt Debut), I'm sorry. In the written version of the
print out, there was a comment from you that need to check in the
confined space standard for language just relating to where…

Bill Hamilton:	To awareness, I'm sorry. 

Bill Hamilton:	I'm Sorry and when we went through yesterday I breezed
over that. I did check that. There wasn’t an awareness because the
standard is written for entry, so they don't have an awareness per se. I
made a note to go in - I made an action item for myself to follow up on
that and look into whichever NFTA standard there was, which I - NFT
1670, I need to go look at that. 

(Matt Debut):	I made a note, so maybe put that comment back in. 

Man:	No, I'm sorry. I'm wondering, what you were actually looking for? 

(Matt Debut):	There's no entry in awareness level. I think the intent
was to be able to reference, just ensure that there was language that
would explain what awareness level is - confined space, rescue awareness
was, which I think is limited to identifying confined spaces and
avoiding. 

Bill Hamilton:	That's all it is. Right exactly. 

(Matt Debut):	That was just the intent, just that responders ensure that
they are - that all responders are trained at a minimum to be able to
identify and avoid confined spaces. 

Kurt Voigt:	Yes, and in addition - this is Kurt. In addition to that, I
mean you can make a non-entry rescue?

Bill Hamilton:	Correct. 

Kurt Voigt:	So if you have somebody on a retrieval system you can
actually extract that way but other than that there's no entry?

Man:	Right. The intent was just make them aware that confine spaces
exist and don’t go in them. If you're not trained, don’t go in it,
don’t be the one who goes into the well thinking you're going to save
(Timmy), if you haven’t been trained to go into wells and save
(Timmy). 

Bill Hamilton:	Just recognizing a well can be a confined space? 

Rick Ingram: 	This is Rick, one question on one - and roman numeral I
and II, where we mentioned tiers again. Minimal knowledge and skills
required were based on tiers on job performance on job performance
requirements. Do we need that in there or do we just say, on job
performance requirements? 

Rick Ingram:	Sorry, (Bill)? 

(Bill):	Yes, Rick. I think if I recall from our conversation from last
time, I think, I can go either way we can go on just job performance
requirements but I think we were trying to differentiate between the
levels or the tiers. Work that would be performed. I would be good
either way. 

(Ken Botno):	(Unintelligible) add anything in that would be confusing to
folks? 

Man:	Are we good on tiers? Or do we want to take it out? 

Man:	I recommend at this case you can take it out. I think at this point
you can take it out. I think Rick's right. I think you could just take
JPR's for different responder duties staff and responsibilities. 

Man:	Makes sense. 

(Matt Debut):	I don’t know that anybody in the fire service community
would understand tiers of JPRs, they would understand JPRs. 

Man:	Okay, any other thoughts or questions?

Rick Ingram:	Is that three for me? Do I get the gold star? 

((Crosstalk)) 

Rick Ingram:	Tiers was mentioned twice. 

(Matt Debut):	Anybody have a gold star? I hate to tell you but there's
public document all over the place, we have all kinds of things that go
back to being based on - and I guess I could have said here, based on
the type and level of service. Now we've actually added six tiers. This
term, based on the type of level of service established on Paragraph E
of this section, is probably in this document about 35 times,
(unintelligible) or more. Just to remind everybody, because that's where
it was established, that's where we established those requirements. 

	Do they know that that's what their writing it based on what they - the
decision they made back then? 

Man:	I think Paragraph E is the section that were going back to looking
at.

(Matt Debut): 	Right, that's the correct, yes. Has the, establishing,
yes. Establishment of merging service capabilities. 

Bill Hamilton:	Right. 

Rick Ingram:	If we're going to use the term tier, I think we have to
have a definition for that so it clarifies. 

Man: 	This is one of those issues where we're wordsmithing and maybe we
need to allow OSHA to ask OSHA to, you know, take a look at it and make
the language consistent. 

Man:	Okay. 

Bill Hamilton:	Everybody okay with that? 

(Matt Debut):	Yes. 

Bill Hamilton: 	Okay. 

Man: 	Any other comments or thoughts about Section H, responder training
or qualifications? 

(Ray):	(Bill), there was one section under two, on Page 16. Two roman
numeral three. About the driver, driver operator and meeting
professional qualifications. I made a comment about, there would be
probably some qualifications that drivers who were responsible for
transporting workers to and from. 

Man: 	(Ray), I made a note to - and we may also have (Kathy) send me
some information about the operators of ambulances. That's not something
that I worked into it, yet. 

(Ray):	Okay. 

((Crosstalk)) 

Bill Hamilton: 	I guess I kind of got us off track a little bit. I kind
of wanted just to go through the things I had changed since the last
meeting. Make sure that I was kind of skimmed over yesterday, make sure
you guys were okay with that. Then with the intent of not necessarily
wordsmithing and editing right now and getting on to the - to some of
the more specific things. I'll leave this thought in there. I'll put
some more notes in. And I don’t know we have much more to go through
that was changed after our last meeting. There certainly needs to be
some stuff added in there. I just don’t know what all to put in there
yet. 

Man:	All right. Any other comments? Are we ready to go to I? Facility
and equipment preparedness. 

(Ken Botno):	(Unintelligible) if you don't mind. Just for a quick
comment or note. I'm very pleased with the wording of (unintelligible).
Number 2, prepared (unintelligible). The way it's written actually
clarifies a lot of cloudiness in some areas. Really, for the record,
happy the way it reads. 

Man:	Where are you again, (Ken)?

(Ken Botno):	Number 2, Page 16, the last paragraph. 

Man:	Okay. 

(Ken Botno):	It just says, ensure that each person who is going to be
asked to operate above the awareness level be trained to op. It really
makes a differentiation from the way it's currently interpreted. I
really like the way this is worded, just for the record. 

Man:	Okay. 

Bill Hamilton:	(Bill), I'll push back to you to take you to where we
need to go. 

(Matt Debut):	The next change that I have is at the bottom of 18 and 19.
Essentially that was just to - what had been in sentence form here on
triple I, on page - on the bottom of Page 18, had the incentives form we
recommended to be turned into bullets for the (unintelligible). The
words are there, it's just not (unintelligible) to bullets. I didn’t
figure - hope there's no issues with that. 

Rick Ingram:	I think that it's pretty clearly written. I liked it better
in bullets than in (unintelligible) myself. Thinking of the end users. 

Man:	Sure, okay. 

Rick Ingram:	Just my opinion. 

Man:	Okay. We have the anti-safety vest. Industry recognized on VII,
industry that practically was opposed, to guidelines. This was on Page
20. 

(Matt Debut):	Then the contaminated PPE not being in passenger
compartment vehicles. A little bit reworded but it also moved it had
been in the vehicle section, they asked to move it to this section, so
that's that one there under IX.

Bill Hamilton:	Just a question. Is there any value to adding incentives
in this section about requiring DSO's to ensure at least gross decon of
PPE prior to leaving the scene of an emergency incident? And by, gross
detail, I would mean nothing more than hosing them, you know, to get the
large chunks off. I acknowledge the fact that there are emergency
responders who respond to OB and put there PPE back in their vehicles.
They have no choice but to do that. I also acknowledge that every single
day fire department personnel put their PPE back in the crew cab of the
apparatus. 

	I wonder if there shouldn’t be a requirement that the ESO ensure at
least gross decontamination of PPE prior to leaving the scene of an
emergency. Just asking a question, any thoughts? 

(Craig):	I would support that. This is (Craig). Overall, I mean we felt
that (unintelligible) about the contaminates and repeated exposure to
that. (Unintelligible). I support (unintelligible).

(Matt Debut): 	I think that's part of the feasibility. If maybe they
need to hose it off before they go, before they return. 

Bill Hamilton:	Yes. What I'm envisioning is an item above this one. That
because you're not going to be able to completely decontaminate the PPE.
It is going to continue to off-gas. As it cools it will continue to
off-gas. There is no other way than bagging it and carrying it on the
exterior of the vehicle, there's no way to avoid that. What I'm trying
to get to is, simply not having people put there really crappy PPE right
back inside without at least affirmatively decontaminating themselves. 

(Matt Debut):	Just gross decontamination. 

(Craig):	That means a guy in Montana in January is going to hose off his
gear?

Bill Hamilton:	He's already frozen. I mean, I'm with you, but if he's
wet he's already frozen solid. 

Bill Hamilton:	It's one of the things. I'm just kind of like, this will
be, you know, I'm okay with it, to the extent feasible. To the extent
feasible, you know, ESO shall ensure that PPE is grossly decontaminated
prior to leaving the scene to the extend feasible. That's what I would
offer, because, to me, what I know that I will hear is that, if we
don’t do something in this standard to address the cancer issue among
firefighters, we're going to be crucified for ignoring the most pressing
issue in the fire service today. 

(Craig):	As long as there's some wiggle room, (unintelligible) feasible
and…

Bill Hamilton:	Yes. 

(Craig):	…this will be just like, quick (unintelligible) or slides?

Rick Ingram:	Well, yes. Could we just use the word, should?

(Matt Debut):	No. 

Bill Hamilton:	No. 

(Jay):	Should not allow to appear. 

(Matt Debut):	This is where (Sarah) would be - (Jay), just so you know,
this is where (Sarah) would be jumping over the table right now for
saying that word. 

(Kathy Robinson):	If all you want is the best practice or
recommendation, then you can go with should, but that doesn’t belong
in a standard. Standards are for requirements. 

(Matt Debut): 	Right. 

((Crosstalk)) 

(Matt Debut):	Containment of ESO shower ensure. 

(Kathy Robinson):	On that record there's no… 

((Crosstalk)) 

(Matt Debut):	Contained PPE. 

Bill Hamilton:	Grossly decontaminated. 

(Kim):	Do people know it's grossly decontaminated mean? 

(Matt Debut): 	In the industry, my observation would be, yes. That would
be my observation. In the industry they would now what that means. 

(Kim):	Okay. 

((Crosstalk)) 

(Kim):	Do people share that? I have no idea. 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	(Unintelligible) not in the industry. We could also define gross
decon (unintelligible). 

Man:	I think we can explain what we mean in the preempt, but we don’t
need to have a definition. 

Rick Ingram:	Got you. Is gross decon…

((Crosstalk)) 

(Matt Debut):	Yes, exactly. 

((Crosstalk)) 

(Matt Debut):	Or brush them off, right. 

Man:	(Unintelligible). 

Man:	You're not hosing down everyone.

(Kathy Robinson):	Your (unintelligible). 

Man:	I would think grossly decon because, again, I don’t think you're
going to get complete decontamination. 

(Matt Debut):	I'm not trying to get to complete decon. 

(Ken Botno):	No, gross. 

(Matt Debut):	Just gross decon. 

(Ken Botno):	Not L1. 

(Matt Debut):	Thank you. 

Man:	Okay, everybody okay with that? 

(Matt Debut):	Yes. Should be gross, not grossly. Oh yes, grossly would
be good, make it even grosser.

Rick Ingram:	Grossly decontaminated (unintelligible). 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	(Matt), well intended, I understand. We had this discussion in
January for a long time. The reality of this, you wash somebody down,
wet and slimy your putting that in the truck. They catch another call,
working call, they got wet gear. You're going to get hammered… 

(Matt Debut):	No matter what we do. 

Man:	Right, but at least your addressing to the forefront the issue of
potential removal as much …

((Crosstalk)) 

(Matt Debut):	I'm going to be honest with you, I'm more concerned about
the volunteer firefighter in Arizona, or wherever it is, who puts the
gear in his trunk but has a three-year-old child in the back, in the car
seat. 

Man:	Or second seat of a pick-up. 

(Matt Debut):	Yes, and all of that is permeating that, you know,
environment. 

Rick Ingram:	I want to throw something out there for discussion again.
So we're dealing with lots of other folks besides firefighters here,
other types of responders, could we not say, decontaminated to the
extent possible, instead of gross decontamination or decontaminated for
those laypersons that would not know what that means? Would that, I
mean, would that fit, because that's exactly what (Kim) just said. You
want to decontaminated to the extent possible before you put it in the
vehicle. 

(Kim):	What you're saying is, let's take out the word "grossly" and say,
"To the extent feasible." 

Rick Ingram:	Yes, to the extent feasible. 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	(Kim), let me trail off because your dripping into territory that
is dangerous. How we consider feasible, okay, is, there's no reason you
couldn't have a kiddie pool and do the full HAZMAT decon. That's
feasible, it's technologically possible, it's not economically
infeasible. That word feasible, once you go beyond grossly
decontamination to just general decon, puts you into, you know, much,
much more than I think you intend. 

Man:	Yes, I'm also thinking, you know, that frankly people should not be
wearing their - if they get blood on their PPE that they should have
some mechanism to ensure that their separating their body, you know,
from that. If they get to the hospital and they get a spare set of
scrubs or something like that. I don’t care how it happens, I'm just
trying to ensure worker safety. 

Rick Ingram:	Well, I'm trying to save confusion later when it goes to
public comment. 

(Matt Debut):	Yes, I guess my thinking is that if (Andy)feels like this
man - I'm sorry. If (Andy) feels like we need to address it in the
preamble that it probably will get addressed. 

Man:	I think as long as your saying, "Gross decon," that is one very
small subset of all of the decon area. If you take out the word gross,
now you're buying the whole thing and it's a lot, lot more. The way that
you mean feasible is not, do we think it's a good idea, do we feel like
doing it, you know, at this particular moment? It would have to be
economically or technologically impossible to do. 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	(Unintelligible) is in the eye of the beholder and we don’t have
a regulatory enforcement history around (unintelligible) because
otherwise none of our regulations would be done because then everybody
would tell us...

((Crosstalk))

Man:	…practicable. Practicable is actually in a standard. Practicable.

(Matt Debut):	Must be an old one.

Rick Ingram:	That's reporting to OSHA. 

(Matt Debut):	I'm okay with, I mean just for my point of view gross
decontaminated gets to the basic idea.

(Ken Botno):	Do we pass after we need to define upfront and what it is,
or leave it alone?

(Andy):	I think we can probably leave it alone and explain what we mean.
There's a lot of literature around decon that I don’t think we want to
bite off. 

Rick Ingram:	We still have, to the extent (unintelligible), do we want
to leave that in? 

((Crosstalk)) 

(Andy):	Yes, I think that we can leave in because it's narrowed down by
gross decon. For example, let's say you, you know, were out of water,
you used all the water on a fire and you now, you know, don’t have the
ability to hose somebody down. That's infeasible. And maybe then the
answer is, all your doing is brushing of your gear. That gross decon
really narrows what you could potentially be expected to do.

(Ken Botno): 	Would it be appropriate at the end to put, for example,
brush off large contaminates or wash off, just as an example. 

(Andy):	Yes. I think it's fine to put in a note, like a note in the
right text but a, you know, Microsoft word note, where we say, for
example, we need to, you know, hose off or brush. So that, you know,
carry forward, people understand what that means. We can include that in
the summary and explanation and preamble language. That people
understand what that means. 

Man:	You want to ask a question? 

Man:	Yes, under grossly contaminated.

(Kathy Robinson):	I guess I'd like to support what (Andy) just said, and
also what Rick, said earlier. This is a document not just for
firefighters. I had heavy equipment in my yard last week and that guy
wouldn't have had the first idea about decontamination, like any of the
experts around this table. 

	I think listing the examples so that they don’t think they have to
have some big kind of chamber or something they need to do. We always to
keep the layperson in mine because these skilled support workers aren't
just firefighters or other health professionals. 

(Greg):	This is (Greg) with (unintelligible). Rick, I was going to go
back to your point when (Kathy) just brought it up, that we need to put
- there not going - I mean, is it captured for the tow-truck operator or
that's crawling around in that other than our fire service or EMS
personnel?

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor Stagnaro. I think under the skilled
small workers it's pretty complimented as far as the guidelines that
covers them. (Unintelligible), I just wanted to say (unintelligible). 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	(Unintelligible). We have a receipt on (unintelligible). That's
addressing our (unintelligible). 

(Greg):	Hi, this is (Greg). I got one more. I don’t have a gold star
yet, so I'm probably going to be at a deficit. Yesterday - and Bill
Warren, I'm looking at you because we were having a conversation, I
can't remember what section in it. It said, protective clothing and then
personal protective equipment. I think I heard some of us in here
swallow hard when we said, "Are we okay with that," because I know I was
thinking is PPE means PPE, you know, across the board. Here we've got an
ensemble, you know, for their - and maybe I'm just too deep in the
weeds. I can't remember that section, (Bill), where we were. 

(Bill):	I recall that (unintelligible). There is a differential between
the protective clothing that you wear and the protective equipment that
goes on top of it. Okay so, we would need to differentiate in that case
yesterday that we don’t combine those two because they're not the
same. You have your protective clothing like, for example, what for
instance would we wear at work? For certain kind of routing. They also
would be protected by certain personal (unintelligible) . I think we
want to make sure that we don’t join those two together. Thank you for
helping. 

(Greg):	I did a word search for protective clothing, see how many times
we used it. 

(Bill):	That to me, what it says there would be correct.
(Unintelligible) clothing along with the equipment that goes with the
protective PPE that goes along with it. The respirator is not a piece of
clothing. Your equipment clothing. 

Man:	Okay, any other thoughts? Okay, (Bill) - oh, sorry, (Matt)? 

(Matt Debut):	Just what I think I hear you guys saying is replace PPE
with protective clothing not equipment, is that correct? I think that's
what (Greg) is saying.

((Crosstalk))

(Bill):	I mean, if you're not geared to off-gas, correct? And so, I'm
your helmet is not off (unintelligible). 

Man:	I need a little clarification. You said PPE protective clothing and
equipment. Are we going to still list PPE? 

(Bill):	(Unintelligible). I think that's separate from the slogan that
they use. I think we would probably use PPE…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	This bunker gear would be PPE, I don’t know. 

(Matt Debut):	I think within the industry, PPE is commonly in the
industry as being everything (unintelligible). 

((Crosstalk)) 

(Matt Debut):	Okay. I didn't see a difference. I think we'll get a
letter of interpretation request defining that. 

(Kim):	That's another thing that could be addressed in the preamble, is
my thinking.

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	If we say PPE and equipment, would that satisfy what your - or
you're still worried about the ensemble?

Man:	Clearly define it of what the difference is (unintelligible) and
what is inclusive on that, (unintelligible).

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Should we take an action item to the 75 PPE?

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	I would just, if I could, I would just recommend that we let (Bill)
go back and make a last-minute decision about - so there's one, were not
interchangeable using words that mean the same thing that don’t
necessarily mean the same thing. What if (unintelligible) with it being
consistent. 

(Matt Debut):	We could put a definition in the PPE personnel private
protective equipment to include all various things so everyone knows.
Just add a definition. What I recommend is that we add a definition for
PPE. 

(Greg):	We're trying to capture action items. I just want to…

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	Right. Exactly. Define - so the action item would be for (Bill) to
define PPE in the definition section or use the term PPE throughout the
document. 

(Bill):	Okay. 

(Greg):	That makes sense to me. 

Man:	Okay, are we good? 

Man:	(Unintelligible) to define PPE is a lot. 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	As a single term, it's a lot?

(Bill):	Yes. I'm looking at our glossary of terms and I'm on two pages
(unintelligible). 

Man:	Okay. 

Man:	PPE alone has two pages of definitions? 

(Bill):	Yes, there's so many different documents and some pages are just
space. Specific to this type of (unintelligible). 

(Ken Botno):	There has been a lot of work, though, (unintelligible).
Different standards, definitions in the same file. 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	I think we can take a look at this, we'll see where that page is.
We also need to look at 1910 1 Version 2, which is our PPE standards. I
think the general intent is that PPE is a term that encompasses all
protective clothing and equipment. 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	Okay, we had circled back. I think, (Bill), you had taken us up
through Page 21, maybe?

(Bill):	Should be 21, vehicle preparation and operation. We have
inspect, maintain, repair or remove from service. That was a suggestion
at the main meeting. This is just a note that we added about some things
don’t have seatbelts. Vehicle mounted fire pumps, for the testing of
them, that's what 1911 goes to. Said it's put in a GPL level, that
should include (unintelligible). German and any others have driven and
operated, driver and operated. That was just to clarify, some things are
driven and some things are operated, some things are both. 

(Bill):	Yes, that's the piece we're backing to include at least one of
the following. I put them in bullets. 

Man:	Something I wanted to add for that one (unintelligible). (Bill), I
thought that we looked at the construction standard, talked about with
responder. Audible back alarm or horn, or (unintelligible). I thought we
were going to allow the horn because if we don’t have a backup marker
(unintelligible) equipment, it's material to that back up marker. They
could not use a horn (unintelligible) construction standard alone. 

(Bill):	Is it a separate horn from the one that you move people or…

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	Let's see, it's just a normal horn with a vehicle (unintelligible).
We use it. I just have a backup alarm.

((Crosstalk)) 

(Bill):	You sound it instead of the - got you. 

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor. I think that might be problematic for
ESO's, in particular, fire service because your using audible devices to
respond to emergency incidence. If you back up a piece of equipment
having used an audible device to move traffic out of the way and
somebody gets off the fire truck or - and is behind it, they may not
recognize that your blowing the horn so that they get out of the way.
They might think you're moving forward. 

	I think it's very important to have the spotter, the driver walk around
the back-up camera. I would almost leave out audible backup alarm or
horn out of it and require somebody who's on fire apparatus that's using
audible devices to go to an emergency incident. Somehow ensure there's
nobody back there other than an audible horn for a backup alarm. 

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I think we talked about subpart O and then action 26 standard. I
don’t think it allows for a horn when you're backing out. You can have
a backup alarm, spotter, you have to have one of those two. I think
it’s Section 600, if I'm not mistaken. 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	I could be corrected. (Unintelligible) for an off-road vehicle, it
does allow for a horn. 

Man:	Do you have those definitions?

Man:	I can't get to it. 

((Crosstalk))

(Bill):	You're welcome. 

((Crosstalk))

(Andy):	(Unintelligible) apparatus (unintelligible). They don't use the
alarm or the backup alarm, but they will use a horn, along with spotter.
Drive and walk around. (Unintelligible), but they do use a horn.

(Bill):	Well, when your backup alarm fails and you're in an emergency
situation, you're going to use something. 

Man:	No, my point is, if there backing up, they're going to do a walk
around first, there going to have a spotter, but they'll also be
somebody in the (unintelligible) seat, not the trail unit.
(Unintelligible) utility unit. The utility operator will also have a
horn that’s how it communicates to the driver. 

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor. Yes… 

((Crosstalk)) 

(Bill):	I'm not talking about the front horn; I'm talking more in the
rear. 

Victor Stagnaro:	…right, this is Victor, That's a mechanism used to
communicate with the driver in the front of the tiller, truck and for
the tiller driver to communicate. Not for the purposes of ensuring or
checking to make sure that people are out of the way when you're backing
up. Although, the driver would use that to indicate to the driver, stop
the fire truck, so I get that. I think…

(Bill):	Not an exclusion.

Victor Stagnaro: Yes, right, the purpose of the horn is for that
communication to occur between the two. 

(Chris Tremlin):	This is (Chris). Not all the machines today - I mean,
not if you're talking directly about fire apparatus, we talk about
construction equipment that might be on the job. They are getting more
popular, the back-up cameras, but they're not on - they might not be on
every machine you see today. If that's going to be a - is that a mandate
that every machine has to have a back-up camera or just…

((Crosstalk)) 

(Chris Tremlin):	At least one of those, okay. 

Man:	Standard operating procedure to have one of them

(Chris Tremlin):	On, this is (Chris) again. In emergency situations, now
speaking to the first responders in the room, in those particular
incidences, are there spotters that will work with the different pieces
of equipment on the job?

((Crosstalk)) 

Pat Morrison:	This is Pat. There supposed to be. 

(Chris Tremlin):	Supposed to be, okay. 

Bill Warren:	This is Bill Warren. Let me just tell you, my experience
has been, is that - (Matt) is exactly right. Most the fire department,
in particular this fire department, has all specific to require a
spotter for every time you back up. What I've seen is that policy is a
lot different than practice. If you leave it to the humans, they'll
leave that out. We have had fatalities as a result of backing an
apparatus over, or you back over a firefighter who doesn’t see it
coming and there's no backup alarm, there's no audible warning that
tells them, I am making this maneuver. 

	Therefore, we've seen a lot. In fact I investigated one to where a
firefighter was killed as a result of a backup. Where the apparatus
backed 150 feet up and caught him in between his ambulance and the
firefighting truck. My concern is if we just leave it to the spotter,
even though I think that’s the best way to do it, I still think we
have to have alternative ways to ensure that we do protect those guys,
because you can't see in the back on some of those machines. 

(Chris Tremlin):	No, and like somebody mentioned before, the certain
machine depending on what's going on, you know, if they back into a pile
or whatever sometimes the backup alarms do get clogged and they fail. I
mean, it’s a mechanical device so they do fail. Just to be aware of
that. 

(Matt Debut):	I agree with you, (Chris), I think the best way to do is
always have a spotter. 

(Bill):	Yes. We have a real simple backing practice that we use. Did I
submit that to you guys to consider for adding as an appendix
(unintelligible)? I know we got a long list already but it's very simple
and it's very effective and we use it all across the industry all the
time. We have pretty large equipment with towing rigs et cetera that we
roll around. (Unintelligible). 

(Danny):	This is (Danny). Absolutely. The other thing is that the agency
and the construction area is going to be looking at backing operations
in more detail. There's going to be a lot more stuff coming out of that.
I think that by the time we're done with this there will be a lot more
on that. 

(Andy):	Maybe we'd like to use it as well. 

(Danny):	(Andy), I'm hoping that they also - not only as construction
for backing issues but backup culture and general industry. We've
experienced already several backing fatalities in agriculture. We are
absolutely aware of that and we've done some guidance on backing in
agricultural operations but we don’t really have standards that apply.
There's a whole bunch of political and legal reasons why we don't cover
a lot of those, you know, ag operations. We have those guidance models
because it's been a problem. 

((Crosstalk)) 

(Ken Botno):	We're good? I heard somebody. 

(Chris Tremlin):	This is (Chris), I believe that there is one of the
last safety and health meetings back over the - for the past year. OSHA
is supposed be starting to maybe form a committee regarding backovers in
the construction industry, is that correct?

Man:	That's correct, that's out of our directive of construction. And
when we are tangentially involved in it. 

Man:	Are we moving on? 

Man:	I think we can move on. 

Man:	Okay (unintelligible) the thing (unintelligible) about the design
built and intended without a seat belt. But just sort of add a note as a
reminder for us to think, if we wanted to add in there that it's for the
vehicles that are built without seat belts. Manufactured. Okay. 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	Golf carts. Electric carts or something like that. 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	I'm making myself a (unintelligible). I'll go to the other note and
make that change. So, and then we have we mentioned with the SRT for
when it's not feasible for them to be belted when they're - we included
parades and for vehicles without seatbelts and those with
(unintelligible) note. 

Man:	Can I ask a question? What's the intent of alternative mean? I
wasn't here for that part of the discussion. I just want to try to
understand. (Unintelligible). 

Man:	If they cannot be in a seat with a seat belt there is either - for
example a speed restriction or they wear a harness that's secured to the
vehicle (unintelligible). 

Man:	Okay, thank you. 

Man:	Be careful what you say not because you could be in the next news
article at (unintelligible). 

Man:	Don't forget Easter bunny.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	And then just above (unintelligible) say the TPD, we moved that
somewhere else. On the PPE section, I'm going to recommend that we
completely skip that for right now because one of the subgroup of the
(unintelligible) meeting is tasked with looking at that again, so let's
maybe we can let them take a look at it and match it up with E and we'll
look at it tomorrow after they finish that work tonight, right? Come on
Victor. 

Man:	So we're skipping over preemptive plan. 

Man:	Because we have to look at it all, so let them do that and - it has
- what's in there is all the changes that were made - that I made based
on what you recommended at the May meeting, so I will - especially for
this part, I'll accept all the changes and then so they know what they
had to start with based on your recommendation from the last meeting,
and then they can make recommendations on top of that or to that based
on what, in theory, where we would be now. 

Man:	So my one point to the team that's going to be working on that is,
you know, reading through this it goes right into (unintelligible)
locations, etc. develop, but does it say this is to be used
(unintelligible) develop this and for use prior to - develop it prior to
incidents to be able to respond to incidents. So I think that
(unintelligible) a really good lead in sentence would help
(unintelligible). Because you know, as I understand how these things
evolve and everybody has done a great job with it, but give us a little
bit of context before you go right into it. What the (PIP) is, etc. 

	I think you know, maybe starting with the definition there. You know,
maybe restating the definition a little bit or referring to them. 

Man:	(Unintelligible). Just make a note of I'd like to see maybe number
five moved up to - not five but V moved up to II, because it's kind of
four down and it's really the crux of the matter. It's on Page 23. Roman
numeral V. If we could consider moving it to double I or Roman numeral
II. It's really important. It needs to be up there. And also remove - to
the extent feasible, I think it should say shall do it. 

Man:	That was just a note for (unintelligible). 

Man:	Let's take this to Paragraph L, emergency incidents, standard
operating procedures. You asked that I included that they are - like we
had the flexible (unintelligible) further down and we moved it to the
front. It will be right up to the top. Here's another community or
facility that we will resolve once we work out that key section in E.
Looks like (unintelligible). So 2 just moved up from 4. Repositioned
that. Three is the procedure beyond here, establishing what they're
going to do when they can't do anything or if it's beyond their
capability. 

	And evacuation procedures - this was a drop and run. Emergency
evacuation from dangerous situation. (Unintelligible) for responding to
May Day situation. 

Man:	Can I ask a quick question? You've got evacuation in 3 and then
you've got evacuation in 5. So it seems like those are the same thing,
and if they're not we should describe how they're different. 

Man:	(Unintelligible). 

Man:	What's the difference between the different evacuation procedures
when an incident may become too hazardous or procedures for emergency
evacuation of responders? 

Man:	Well, Number 4 was the place is going to blow up and so get the
heck out. And Number 5, I agree it needs to be re-worded, but that's the
fire is out of control, back out of the house, let's go back outside,
surround the ground for a while and reconvene and you know, re-establish
what we want to do, as opposed to 4 is what they should have done in
West Texas which is drop and run. 

Man:	(Unintelligible) is the orderly removal of crews, transition from
offensive to defensive, orderly removal and the other is jump out the
window because (unintelligible). So I think this probably should be in
the same provision. So for example, shall develop operating procedures
that include one, transition from offensive to defensive operation and
orderly withdrawal and then two immediate evacuation or whatever the
term is because I understand the need for the different procedures and
we should make clear what the difference is. 

Man:	Maybe we could have Victor's group look at that too. 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	(Unintelligible). 

Man:	Thanks (Matt). All right, so this is as I said earlier, we had
basically we put 6 in there for spotting a May Day situation and
(unintelligible) and then 7 establish (unintelligible) procedures for
rapid intervention team but we also have rapid intervention team - rapid
intervention has its own section. Its own paragraph, rather. And so then
6, so we really kind of need it in one place but go ahead. 

Man:	So on 6 and 7 the only part that I'm concerned about here is our
procedures for finding May Days different than rapid intervention teams
or do we use the rapid intervention team to respond to May Day situation
is issue number one. You know, is it one or two provisions. 

	And then the second one is some language description/discussion about
how this is different than is what in the two in two out provision and
already contained in 134, because we want to make sure that we're clear
where there's overlap and where there's difference. 

(Matt Debut):	This is (Matt). I agree and I'm willing to take a stab at
some language that addresses those two. The reason I was
(unintelligible) was because the only way we get (unintelligible)
responding to those situations is if we have an SOP that identifies what
a fire code is supposed to do when they find themselves lost
(unintelligible) out of area and need assistance or something like that.
Meaning, we need to define what a May Day situation is and the
expectation that that is the term that we want people to use. 

Man:	We take out the word responding and it's for May Day and that's
what is it … 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	Right because the responding to May Day is what made it seem to me
like overlap with the rapid intervention teams and the two in two out. 

Man:	(Randy), were you here this morning when we discussed the
definition for rapid intervention? 

(Randy):	No, I was not. 

Man:	(Unintelligible) because it very specifically (unintelligible) that
was the conversation yesterday was that rapid intervention is not the
same thing as two-in two-out. And beating the two-in two-out provision
of (unintelligible) 134 is different than rapid intervention, which is a
team of individuals together (unintelligible). 

Man:	We developed overnight - we developed a definition for rapid
intervention team, notice that the very last piece of it says it's not
the same as the two-in/two-out, specific - or maybe should say a
separate specific requirement. But we also said we would - we were okay
with it for the time being and we would kind of revisit after we talked
about the rapid intervention stuff this afternoon. 

Man:	One thing that we're going to discuss this afternoon at the
(unintelligible) was the staffing we thought would be appropriate to the
size of the incident. As opposed to a specific number. I think we're
kind of hung up on the number. 

Man:	(Unintelligible) we started with it here. There is a separate
requirement for two in and two out later on in the document. 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	So your intention if I'm getting this is that in doing the rapid
intervention team theory, you have also met your requirements under two
in two out but this just goes above and beyond two in two out? 

Man:	That's exactly right. And I'm more concerned about the reverse. I
don't want - I don't think DSO should live under the mistaken belief
that if they've met their requirement for two in two out, that they've
met the requirement for rapid intervention. Because those are two
totally different things. So if they have a RIT team in place, you know,
a team of personnel that, you know, that that could be the requirement
for two-in two-out. But meeting two-in two-out doesn't mean you've met
the requirements for rapid intervention. 

	And my immediate (unintelligible) let me give the best example I can.
An entry company arrives on location with four personnel dressed,
equipped, ready to go and they happen to be the second arriving engine
and they are the engine being used to meet the two in two out, they also
could serve as a RIT team throughout the entire event, assuming that the
complexity of the incident is not beyond that of our (unintelligible).
But is the second arriving engine has two people and that's your two-out
for the first driving engine company, those two people don't constitute
a RIT team for the balance of the event. If you put ten emergency
responders into the (unintelligible). 

Man:	Right. So the question in my mind is given the two-in two-out
already exists, what are you required to do above and beyond two-in
two-out for every incident in the country? Under this provision for RIT.
That's the key distinction in my mind because that is what people are
going to ask - what do I need to do above and beyond? What incident
needs to be covered? 

	And our economists are going to figure out costs and other stuff with
going above and beyond two-in two-out. And it's got to be something that
is clear, you know, this group thinks it's necessary and is practicable
or feasible directly. It's feasible, you know, for all the departments
so (unintelligible) become standard at all of the events that you
described it being appropriate for. 

Man:	All right, we can just go ahead with this. I think that is going to
be part of the discussion that comes up under N3 on Page 28 under
incident safety, because that's where we try to talk about - and we have
not looked at that at all yet as a group. That's where the two-in
two-out information kind of appears in this document but we haven't
gotten there and what we're talking about now is just making sure that
they establish - we're in a standard operating procedure section and
establish standard operating procedure for having a rapid intervention
team. 

Man:	Right, and so but I think while we're in this formative place where
you're developing the policies and procedures before you get to the
using it you've still got to have a very clear concept - the group needs
to have a very clear concept of what do we mean by rapid intervention
team and how is it above and beyond two-in two-out? And then you can
work on implementing it under the incident safety section. 

(Matt Debut):	Right, so this is (Matt). I'll offer that the difference
would be that a rapid intervention team or responders. 

Man:	I think I heard (Ken) say before he's hung up on these numbers and
we don't want to have numbers … 

(Ken Botno):	(Matt) is hung up on it first.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I'm going to be brutally honest. This is going to be a very
controversial position. Two-in two-out was already a huge
(unintelligible). 

Man:	It is probably by fire service. I mean (unintelligible) in the
application (unintelligible) with good reason but the issues - so when
we heard from (unintelligible) our state plan folks, the issues around
two-in two-out and staffing were some of the biggest reasons why they
are concerned about this ruling or this potential ruling, because they
took a lot of hits from their local jurisdiction and they got two guys
from the state who can talk about that. 

	But (Joe), I want to be very clear - and I'm not saying that the group
should or should not, I'm just saying that if you are heading in this
direction, it should be a very clear articulated explanation of what we
mean or what the group means and why it's necessary because this is
going to be a flashpoint issue in this ruling. I mean, I'm not trying to
say do or don't. I'm just trying to say be very clear about what you
mean so that everybody understands. 

Man:	For discussion sake because, you know, (Andy) is absolutely right,
perhaps in my mind two-out is the support people for the first initial
hose line at an incident. A rescue team, whatever. Based on the first
resources you get and a RIT team is a more formalized group that has
proper equipment and you know, they're trained in it and such and I'm
trying to figure out what is a good definition of each, so we'll know
what to think when we're talking about that. 

	So like for instance in two-out, I believe -- and I could be wrong --
the incident commander can serve as one of the two-out people.
(Unintelligible) operator, too, which technically on a RIT team, that
would fly. Somewhere it falls between the stager incident, which is the
immediate starting of it and the complexity of this and how big it gets,
how many people inside the building. And I don't know if it's ever been
established -- and maybe there's no way to do it -- what's a tipping
point? Maybe upon arrival of sufficient resources you formally staff the
RIT. But in hours, it needs to be done as soon as possible for that
first back up of the hose line. 

	I'm just putting it out there - it's thinking out loud more than a
positional on anything. Asking you know, for other people what do you
think on that. What is the difference? 

Man:	(Unintelligible) discuss what you have four-in and four-out. You
have two-in two-out so my math says if you got four-in you could have
four-out. So once again I think we're going to try to address that
because once you have ten-in, two-out is probably not enough. 

Man:	And again, there are a couple of issues to all of this. And one of
them is staffing from a - and is this a staffing issue. And then the
other one is a cost issue. And so our economists will say okay, if you
need X many more people on every fire department to run, you know, a
2000 square foot fire hose that goes beyond the first two engines, where
it would just have two inch (unintelligible) they're going to say they
need X many more thousand fire fighters in the country at 50,000 bucks a
pop annual salary and benefits and you know, you just added $1 billion
to the cost of the pool which now - we're not going anywhere. 

	So you know, there's a lot of different issues because we have to do
cost/benefit analysis. That is one of the biggest things that hangs is
cost/benefit. So I just - and we are happy to consider whatever the
committee wants to recommend to the agency. I just want to make sure
that it is a very clear explanation and again, an understanding of
two-in two-out is easy to say every interior fire needs two-in two-out.
Does every other response in the country require fire response require
rapid intervention? It goes beyond two-in/two-out. And if so, what does
that look like? 

((Crosstalk)) 

(Matt Debut):	This is (Matt). I'm actually okay with the language on
Page 29. If everyone turns to Page 29 and looks at the middle of the
page. The standard operating procedures section was earlier but this
language I believe (unintelligible). Right (unintelligible). 

((Crosstalk)) 

(Andy):	My observation would be that - I mean we could either move 6
over to the SOP section or reference you know, as referenced in
(unintelligible). 

Man:	So I think the way that six is written that it's written broadly
enough that as OSHA people, what we would inspect if we would come in
and say do you have written standard operating procedures for rapid
intervention that allows each department a tremendous amount of
flexibility to figure out what their procedures are, and then the second
part of it was in the event we were (unintelligible) incident we would
say, did you follow your own procedures? And I think that's something
that would be easy for us to live with from a regulatory perspective if
that's what this group thinks would be appropriate from a technical
perspective to accomplish the goals of rapid intervention. 

Man:	And (Andy) this is (Ken). Maybe a disclaimer at the end of that
first I. Maybe the number of responders needed for the team based on the
size and complexity of the incident. I feel better about that because if
not, a lot of people will say well I have two people as my RIT team, you
got a hundred guys fighting the fire. That doesn't meet the intent. So I
would submit that it should be based on this and then they'd have to
fall on common sense and best practices after that.

	If you've got a large building with two attached, two sectors working
and two divisions to the call, you're going to need more than one team
and more than two people in each team. 

Man:	I stepped out and came back in and I'm looking at this one
(unintelligible) to keep them on scope so cliff water rescue for
instance, and I think you all have written this in a way that it would
work for just about any event. Although referencing the NFPA, it's still
work for other events like swift water.

Man:	Well and this is not really directly referencing NFPA. This is our
internal team notation to show where that language and concept came
from, so when you actually (unintelligible) were these (unintelligible).


Man:	That won't be in there (Ken).

Man: 	No that won't be there at all, except where we have these specific
citations to a specific standard and (unintelligible) 1971
(unintelligible) 2016 edition. 

Man:	Those are just temporary references.

Man:	These are just temporary references for everybody to understand
that we didn't pull this out of thin air. 

Man:	Okay so where we are now, (Matt), we have an action item that you
were going to clarify and differentiate between 5 and - I'm sorry, 6 and
7 on Page 24. 

Man:	Yes, I believe the first one was just that first action item was
differentiate between 4 and 5 and then the second action item was
differentiate between 6 and 7. At this point, my recommendation would be
to leave the action item for cleaning up between 4 and 5, leave 6 and to
be more clearly defined and I think the issue about number 7 is simply
whether or not to take it out completely or refer to in accordance with
section M. In other words, we could say that establishes, implements, an
SOP in accordance with (unintelligible). (Andy) what's your - is there a
need or a reason to cross-reference this into (unintelligible) six which
calls for the establishment of SOP? 

(Andy):	What I would say is all the places where you want to have
standard operating procedures should be in a standard operating
procedures section. So I would support moving the rapid intervention
stuff (unintelligible). 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	Move up so that the (unintelligible) written procedures and then
what you want to do in the incident management section is as
appropriate, the incident commander shall implement those procedures or
when necessary shall implement the standard operating procedures
(unintelligible) intervention team. 

Bill Hamilton:	This is Bill Hamilton. When six and seven appeared after
the last meeting because there were a couple things I guess that came
up. I wrote them in here but what I should have remembered and reminded
at that time is we had some of the stuff later on to document, we just
hadn't gotten to it. And the (unintelligible) operations we had were at
least initially were essentially kind of basic. If we look back through
this thing, there are SOPs that litter this document and, you know, one
earlier was an SOP for all alternative means of securing people to
apparatus when they can't sit in that seat. So I'm just trying to think,
instead of moving all of the …

Man:	So at a minimum I think all of the ones that deal with incident
scene safety and emergency operation should be in this one section. So
you know, where we have the driver and a vehicle stops that's kind of
its own self-contained section so it makes sense to have everything
there, but when you have emergency incident standard operating
procedures and anything that is standard operating procedure for use in
an emergency incident probably should be there so that you know, here's
my section that says potentially here is the 20 SOPs I developed for my
department. And then really the emergency operation section - that
Section N is all about using the standard operating procedures that
you've already developed. Does that make sense to everybody? A couple of
nods? 

(Matt Debut):	Yes, I just - this is (Matt). I just think we'll need to
expand the emergency into the standard operating procedure section to
that number and it can just be bullets. You know, it could be in
bulleted format. You know, the following SOPs need to be promulgated
within the ESO. 

Man:	Right, right. And this is something I think you know, we can do in
between. I think the important thing is identify what are the standard
operating procedures that we think need to be developed and implemented
and then we'll figure out how to get it into the right text in the right
way. 

Bill Hamilton:	And (Bill Hampton) playing devil's advocate, just going
back to the vehicle operations right here on Page 21, 2(i) does not
include the term SOP but 2(ii) includes the term SOP. So for emergency
and non-emergency response to (unintelligible) that would be the
emergency section? Emergency incident, standard operating procedure
would this be (unintelligible) moved? 

Man:	I would say that I think that's the type of thing we can discuss
later. I think that's a detail. I think we all agree that there needs to
be those procedures, as long as they're somewhere in the document for
now we can figure out how to group them later. 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	I mean I think from when we were developing the emergency incident
standard operating procedure section, that was first engine to the first
corps, second engine, backup line. You know, that kind of thing is what
we were considering not really trying to include one - we intentionally
tried to spread out all the others to be when you looked for stuff about
vehicles, there's what you need to know about vehicles. When you looked
at things for other (unintelligible) for risk (unintelligible). 

(Matt Debut):	This is (Matt). You could likely in very short terms and
very generic terms list the SOPs, and SOP addressing incident
management, an SOP addressing vehicle operations, an SOP addressing
rapid intervention. And then the details can be in the individual
section. I don't think that that … 

Man:	I was going to compile a list in one area and then reference to the
others. 

Man:	Correct. 

Man:	Okay and with that, what I think is an excellent suggestion,
(Matt), we can take a break? Get a little coffee and stretch. So it's
2:10. 

Man:	I think we stopped that at M but (Bill) just wanted to make a
comment before we …

(Bill):	Just going back to the horn, so I did want to say
(unintelligible) was correct, in that the construction standard
specifically allows for minimum standard, either back up alarm or
spotter and so I just wanted to clarify to the group that I had
forgotten that part of it and was probably thinking of my Navy policy
work requires the use of a horn prior to backing. So I wanted to get
that record corrected for (unintelligible). 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	Can you all hear me? I couldn't hear myself, but I'm partially
deaf. 

	So I think we're starting on Section M, is that correct (Bill)? 

(Bill):	Yes, bottom of Page 24. 

Man:	So you want to take it? 

(Bill):	No. This is where we ended in our May meeting and so we've not
discussed this yet. 

Man:	Okay. 

(Bill):	Would you like me to take it? 

Man:	Okay so let's take a look at Section M as in Mary, incident
management. So the info show to adopt or develop and writing and
implement an incident management system to manage all emergency
incidents based on the type and level of services established in
Paragraph E. The IMS shall provide structure and coordination to the
management of emergency incident operations to provide for the safety
and health of responders involved in those activities. Boy I like that.
That's a technical term. Boy I like that. That's from Arkansas we say
that a lot. We also use cold beer every once in a while. 

	So any comments? Would everybody like time to read through this section
rather than have me read the entire thing, and then - so why don't we
read through Page 24 and 25 and we'll take comments. Is that okay?
Anybody have comments, just raise your hand. Okay, (Ron). 

(Ron Gravdienero):	This is (Ron). If we have it in 4 that the IMS shall
be compatible with (NIMS) and (unintelligible) we probably should have
that right up in front. If you're going to do this (unintelligible) it
will be consistent with the (unintelligible). 

Man:	Okay. Would you suggest that we have that as 1(i). 

(Ron Gravdienero):	That or you can incorporate it in the first
paragraph, writing implement management systems that are consistent with
(NIMS) and the (NRS). Dot, dot, dot .

Man:	Okay. Any comments on that? That makes sense to me. Just combine
the two sentences. Go ahead.

Man:	(Unintelligible). 

Man:	I can tell when the gears are turning. Either that or he's saying a
prayer, I don't know. I think (Bill) is the one that needs to say the
prayer, though. Anybody else got - we have to have a little comedy here
in the afternoon to keep us going. 

Man:	I would recommend - I think we've had issues previously with
multiple part sentences. I would definitely support moving number 4 up
to number 2 and let number 2 become 3 and 4 and so forth. I think the
sentence the IMS shall be compatible with the national info management
system and the national response "shall be compatible", I think is
critical. 

	That takes away the flexibility for people to say well it doesn't have
to be or should be. I think that "shall be compatible" is critical. I
would offer that it's absolutely important and perhaps it should be
number 2 in the section. 

Man:	So shall be compatible. Is compatible - reflect or just compatible?


Man:	Compatible. I think compatibility means it can integrate into and
with the national incident management system and national response
framework. There may be jurisdictional differences in terminology but
from a larger perspective it needs to be compatible so they can
integrate. 

Man:	Okay. Let's go to - since we're looking at Number 4, let's also
turn the page and look at Number 5 and see if that one should go up
there with that at the same time. We could make … 

Man:	I'm okay with that staying where it is. I mean staying where it is.
I think the idea was it's an effort to try to elevate the recognition of
whatever IMS is establishes is compatible. 

Man:	Okay. So we have okay Lisa? 

Lisa Delaney:	Maybe I'm missing that meaning of Number 2, but to me 1
and 2 seem very similar in intent and I wonder if there's a way to merge
them. They’re still referencing there adoption, development, running
and implementation and then 2 that talks about design or sort of
referring back to that Section E of type and level of service. So unless
I'm missing the subtlety of 2, I think there's a way to combine them to
streamline. 

Man:	We want to contemplate that for a second and see how we feel about
it? So the language seems pretty good here but we're just talking about
maybe combining a little bit and taking out a little bit of redundancy
and reordering. 

Man:	If I could point out the little I, each responder shall be trained
on the IMS because that's already in on Page 16. In the training
section, you have training responder to incident management system and
accountability system implemented in accordance with Paragraph L and
ensure, etc. So there's already that training section, just a more
appropriate place for it. 

Man:	Any other comments? So we have a suggestion to move 4 up and
possibly remove I and combine 1 and 2. Victor? 

Victor Stagnaro:	Yes this is Victor. Back to your request for us to look
at Number 5 and if I look at Number 3, Number 3 discussed communication
for effective operation and Number 5 discusses (unintelligible)
information to responders and notification of (unintelligible) so I'm
wondering if that's also an area where there could be some merging
because we're talking about communication so that way, all the
communication portions stays in one area. 

Man:	Okay. 

(Greg):	It's (Greg). Out of respect to all my colleagues here I know
incident management is implemented not only during emergencies but to
capture those - just thinking about, I mean I know there's a handoff
point sometimes where we may - our formalities may have left the fire
grounds or that operation for whatever it is and where I'm going with
that is like in Number 1, when you say that the IMS shall provide
structure and coordination to the management of emergency incident
operations to provide for the safety and health of responders involved
and those activities. 

	So we want to consider I mean in addition to emergency, just other
operations? I'm just throwing that out there because you know, at times
we've got things that are going on there that may be contractors or
something may not be functioning. I'm just offering that up for
discussion. I'm okay with everything we've got in here but does this
need to be more far reaching? I don't know. Am I making sense or not?
You all are not going to hurt my feelings with that you say. 

(Randy):	This is (Randy). I think you're making sense and we talked
about this at one of the earlier meetings. I think we want to be careful
about picking and choosing. You know, this doesn't have to be everything
under the sun. And I hate to say this, but you know, one of the
controlling issues is cost/benefit analysis and so if we don't have
people that are being hurt, you know, at these sorts of incidents, I
would say leave it out. If there are particular cases where you think
people are being hurt and there is a need for us to do something, then I
think it's worth considering. 

Man:	I'm thinking probably more organization and smooth flow of things
(Andy) probably presents more of a threat (unintelligible). 

Man:	Okay. Any other comments?

(Ken Botno):	(Ken) again. I'm just kind of going over and over 6, Roman
numeral I. The word capability kind of stumbles me in that sentence. For
a couple of reasons, but in particular a lot times we say the first
person arriving on a scene shall assume command and sometimes that
person doesn’t have a high degree of experience and training and such.
And then we have a list of things that they shall have the capability to
do. 

	I'm just a little bit - reading that over and over and seeing it, A,
maybe we could just remove the word capability. I'm okay with the word
authority, I think that's fine. Capability is a little bit hard to
measure and also depends upon who shows up and whether or not they've
established (unintelligible). 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	Just in response to that (Ken) I absolutely hear what you're
saying. I think that perhaps an alternate word would be the IT shall
have the qualification and authority. And the reason why I say that is
because we addressed earlier in the training standard that crew leaders
shall be trained to - consistent with the standard of 1021 and I do
think that whoever gets on the radio and assumes and announces that they
have command of an incident should have the qualifications to do so. 

	I would offer in addition to that, that the implementation of an
incident accident report is usually directly implementation to approve
the incident action plan. If you follow that the IMT world, the incident
management team world, the implement commander approves the IAC. 

Man:	So improve and implement? Approve and implement? Or just approve?
He's also going to be implementing, right? 

Man:	Right. 

Man:	Approve and implement. Okay. So let's just for the sake of
productivity, let's not go past 6 right now. So if you're reading past
6, stop. So we've got several action items just through here for right
now so let's get this cleared up first. Since this is fresh on
everybody's mind, in 6(i) do we want to replace capability with
qualifications? Does that make sense to everybody? Anybody disagree with
that? 

Man:	I'm good because even if firefighter one and two we
(unintelligible) it out using the IMS so I think we're okay there. 

Man:	So, (Bill)? 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	Again, qualifications means something. Maybe training? Shall have
the training and authority to perform. 

Man:	Training is experience, also in OSHA language. 

Man:	Training can be a lot of things but I think we've already covered
training in our training section. 

Man:	Okay. Does anybody have any comments on that? So (Bill), does
everybody agree remove capability because that's a relative term and add
training? 

Man:	I would support that. 

Man:	I support that. 

Man:	So (Bill), do you want to do that now? We will block that out and
then on I(c) approve and implement the incident action plan. Do we have
any heartburn with that? 

Man:	Would we consider or implement. There are two things - on a small
incident there will be an informal IEP (unintelligible) and on an even
with multi shifts, there will be a formal (unintelligible) planning. So
the way it says right here it's a little bit different because I see on
a big event, we might implement the IEP. I mean (unintelligible)
operations, it will take care of that. I don't know how we can
straighten it out a little bit. 

(Matt Debut):	This - that's what I was actually - this is (Matt).
(Unintelligible) getting to that they actually approve the IEP. Not
implement. 

Man:	They might on a small event though. That's why I say approve,
implement, or approve or implement. 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	So how about approve and implement as appropriate. Can we say that?


Man:	I would prefer to say approve or implement. 

Man:	Approve or implement. Okay. Okay. 

Man:	So they're approving the plan coming from planning on a big event
or they're implementing it on you know (unintelligible). 

Man:	Could be say approve/implement. Can't approve that, okay. That's
how we do it in the wool patch. Okay. So that was bad. Can we strike
that? I'll be able to come back. Okay so are we good with that? Approve
or implement? Okay. 

	Now let's go back to Page 25 again now. So we have several suggestions.
The simplest one might be to remove (i). 1(i). Can we get a consensus on
removing 1(i). Do we have anybody that disagrees with that?

Man:	That is covered elsewhere. 

Man:	So strike 1(i) (Bill). Thank you very much. And now we've had two
other suggestions. One was somehow combine the language so we've got two
suggestions - one was combine the language in 1 and 2 and then also
consider combining language from 2 and 5 -- 

Man:	Three and 5. 

Man:	Is that 3 and 5? 

Man:	Three and 5. 

Man:	Three and 5, my mistake. And then also moving 4 up to 2. So … 

Man:	Four up to 1. 

Man:	Up to 1, yes. Well I think it was just after - that's where I had
my arrow pointing. So okay, so let's take them one step at a time. Where
would we like number 4. The IMS shall be compatible with national
incident management system and the national response framework. Tell me
where you'd like to see that you experts. 

Man:	We're looking to consolidate 2, 3 and 5 or 4, maybe make them
bullet points under 1 with the first bullet point being that it be
(unintelligible) NRF framework. The first bullet point and then take the
components of 2 and communications part and make bullet points out of
those. It takes away all those other numbers. 

Man:	Okay. So the suggestion is to move number 4 to just under number 1
is that correct? First of all. 

Man:	(Unintelligible). 

Man:	I think you could make it (i). We can't really do bullet points in
the federal register. 

Man:	Okay. 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	(I) would be a good fit because it's the first thing you look at. 

Man:	All right. 

Man:	And then you could address the communications as (ii) and do you
know, (unintelligible). 

Man:	So we'll just replace the language in the current (i) with the
language in number 4. Does that make sense to everybody? Okay we're
seeing nodding heads in the affirmative. So (Bill), would you do that
and then we'll work on the rest of it. Do a methodical change here. All
right? 

Man:	I would recommend that could be (i). I would recommend that the
next sentence what is currently number 2 could be (i), (ii), 3 could be
(iii) and …

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	Okay, so now we have not addressed - okay, I'll let you finish
that. So now we've not addressed Lisa's suggestion that we somehow
combine the language between 1 and 2. Can we look at…

Rick Ingram:	Oh.

Lisa Delaney:	So, yes, one thing you can do, if you just delete one of
the references to that Subparagraph E. So either in Section One where
you talk about based on the type and level of surface, you can just
delete that (unintelligible) section and Double I, and then in a little
more detail in terms of what else is mentioned there, operating
environment, foreseeable incidents, et cetera if you want to keep that.

Rick Ingram:	Yes, so the question would be then, in my mind, does it
belong in one or Double One? So, if we're going to mention it, we'll
mention it in one place, and that would be the more prominent place in
the Number One, would that not be correct, Lisa? That would be setting
the stage upfront to say that you're going to reference Section E here
in this related to the Management Section. That make sense? Okay, could
you say yes for the record?

Lisa Delaney:	Yes. Okay, I'm thinking.

Rick Ingram:	Okay.

Lisa Delaney:	I don't know if we're introducing too many topics in one,
but I think that it's - I don't know what the difference is between
adopting and developing IMS based on the type and level of surface
versus what's in the old Part Two, talks about designing, you know, the
same as developing. 

	But what you're adding with the second paragraph, which is now Double
One, it's drilling down a little deeper in terms of it's not just the
type and level of service. Some additional information is added here
that I don't know if it's beneficial to keep or can we make it a little
more generic and keep it with referencing Paragraph E.

(Mac):	This is (Mac). Theoretically, you could really delete all of two,
all of II. Just delete it all because the overarching statement in
Number One is that the (ESO) shall adopt or develop in running an
incident management system to manage all emergency instances, all.

Rick Ingram: 	Yes, that's what I was thinking as well. So could we get a
consensus on deleting the current II?

(Mac):	If I could make just another comment. I don't develop these kinds
of plans, but the question I have is would it be possible that an
organization, (ESO) would have some kind of boiler plate or template
that they are kind of cutting and pasting rather than to actually
develop it? 

	So, I see this in other standards, that you have to have a written
program, et cetera, and it's usually not that specific. What two does is
drills down a little deeper and tells the regulated community that your
IMS has to have these helps or these components. So, it's given them a
little more instruction. For those who know, maybe it's a no-brainer or,
you know, for new (regs), maybe it's just giving them just a little bit
more instruction about what the expectation is.

Lisa Delaney:	Maybe the word, meet, is too general. Maybe it should be,
address. Address a particular specific characteristic because I think
that (Lauren) is right, that under one, it could be just very general
and not state much (unintelligible).

Rick Ingram:	So let me, I want to throw this out to the group if you
don't mind. The only difference that I see between One and Two is that
we're including size and complexity, as well as the operating
environment for foreseeable incidents. And then it goes right back into
E, the same exact language. Couldn't we take those comments and put them
in one and cover everything? That way you've got your details that
(Lamont) was mentioning and (Jenny) and we can do it, we can get rid of
the entire sentence. Go ahead, Victor.

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor. Let me throw a monkey wrench in there.
If we include as this includes Paragraph E of this section and we also
go back to the pre-incident plan for those particular facilities or
properties where you had to develop a special pre-incident plan, then
that would address kind of what (Lamont) was mentioning too in regards
to particular properties that may be unique that require special
attention. And it goes back to that pre-incident plan component. 

((Crosstalk))

(Mac):	I mean that could be a small iii. If you leave the II in place
and just say, the IMS shall address the particular characteristics of
incidents based on. Take designed to meet or shall address, take out the
B designed to meet, and just say, shall address, would be an option.
That would allow that to stay and then do an iii, and it should be that,
the IMS shall be in accordance with any site-specific pre-incident plans
developed for the location.

Rick Ingram:	That makes sense to me. Does that make sense to you?

Lisa Delaney:	It does seem like there should be some reference to the
pre-incident plan because, otherwise, like, what was the point of it?
You want to take that into account. I don't know if they have to be, in
accordance with, because maybe there's new information and a certain
sense of change, but some language that says that it will, you know,
utilize the (PIP).

Rick Ingram:	Should reference, okay. (Lamar), does that make sense to
you?

((Crosstalk))

Lisa Delaney:	I mean you might take that thing off the shelf and look at
it (unintelligible) I would imagine…

Rick Ingram:	That's right.

Lisa Delaney:	…but you are the (unintelligible).

((Crosstalk)) 

Lisa Delaney:	…based on logic.

Rick Ingram:	Well, I think I play devil's advocate in terms of, like,
getting more granular on to the IMS structure for a specific incident. I
mean, the IMS is supposed to be flexible and scalable, so I don't know
why we need to go into this level of detail, and this is not probably
even an exhaustive list.

(Andy):	Just building off what Lisa said, I think if you have something
that's (NIMS)-compliant, that's kind of covered all the rest of it
because in order to be (NIMS)-compliant, we need something that's going
to be scalable to (unintelligible). Right.

Rick Ingram:	Okay, so do we have any suggestions for language here?
(Bill) is ready to type, I think. (Bill), do you have any comments or
suggestions to add to this?

(Bill):	Nope. I will say that you can see that we pulled a lot of it
from (NFTA) and they were all, you know, separate things. And it is
supposed to be, you know, an overall system for everything that the
(ESO) could, you know, encounter as an overarching way of managing
incidents (unintelligible) and to some extent being, you know, somewhat
general but including, you know, these specific things. And again, we
can just pull it from (NFTA) and if we want to delete it, we can delete
it.

Man:	This cannot - I think it's a necessary component, but I'm not sure
it's in the right place. It looks more like an operational statement
than an administrative statement. It might be a better fit on Page 27
under One I, under Emergency Operations, and (unintelligible) that the
IMS shall meet the particular characteristic of incidents, it's a better
fit because it's more operational there than it maybe would be in the
prior section of Incident Management.

Rick Ingram:	Okay. So I'm taking away one of your gold stars because you
(unintelligible), so.

Man:	I might take one of (Grady's). I really believe there should be a
statement in there, but I'm not sure if it's a good fit in
Administration because it's just too narrow. It's talking about
foreseeable incidents and things. You're not going to know what it's
going to look like until you get there.

(Bill):	Okay, and I just want to say, the comment I made, I'm not sold,
you know, enough on it that it's, you know, considering what (Andy)
mentioned about it has to comply with (NIMS) and that'll cover
everything, you know, I'm fine with that.

Rick Ingram:	And I'll say one thing, I do think that this would be a
great place to mention pre-incident plan because that's really what
we're talking about, the IMS shall address particular characteristics of
incidents based on.

(Mac):	And if you put it that way and it becomes more administrative and
it can just (unintelligible) need to an event, but if you put that in
there, that clarifies it too. I'm good with that way also. And just,
words meant to say it reflects the assessment we did or whatever.

Rick Ingram:	That's what we're doing. We're tying it all back to the
pre-incident plan.

(Mac):	And that's what we're trying to do (unintelligible).

Rick Ingram:	Okay. Is that as clear as mud to everybody? Good
discussion. Now let's put some words on paper. So what are we going to
put here? Can we reach a consensus on this? Do we want that granularity,
size and complexity operating environment for foreseeable incidents or
do we…

(Mac):	I would have put, based on the community or facility risk
analysis…

Rick Ingram:	Yes.

(Mac):	…and that kind of takes care of all of the complexity and all
of the other where-ifs and where-fores. And that goes back to E anyway
because that's what Section E is. We mentioned Section E in the first
sentence, right?

Victor Stagnaro:	This is (Vic). You will want to include Section K then,
which is the pre-incident planning...

Rick Ingram:	That's right.

Victor Stagnaro:	…E and K. 

Rick Ingram:	Yes. Why don't we do that? And that way, we're referencing
E and K and that gets all of our granularity? OSHA forgot to pay the
light bill.

((Crosstalk)) 

Rick Ingram:	So if we, in Number One, would that be an appropriate place
to still mention Section E and K? So would that take care of our issue
here? Would that give us the reference that we need? It might be a
little bit cryptic, but it's there. That would be the - any suggestions
there? Any questions? Again, it's a democracy, and (Lamont), you said
you'd be okay either way?

(Lamont):	(Unintelligible). Could you just review what we're getting
ready to (unintelligible) if you don't mind?

Rick Ingram:	Okay, so we've got a reference to E already in Number One.
That one has not changed at all, and if we add a reference to K, and
that would be pre-incident planning, then that fits very well with
incidents management. 

(Lamont):	Okay.

Rick Ingram:	That would allow us to delete double I.

(Bill):	Right. So, what I typed into, 1. For Your Consideration, says,
The (ESO) shall adopt and develop in writing and implement management
system to manage all emergency incidents based on the type of level of
surfaces established in Paragraph E of this Section. And the
pre-incident plan developed in accordance with Paragraph Ten - I'm going
to have to put in this section)…

Rick Ingram:	Okay, right.

(Bill):	…and then, so that's what you're asking for, something like
that?

Rick Ingram:	Yes. Go ahead and finish the sentence. You said the IMS
shall provide structure…

(Bill):	The IMS shall provide structure and coordination to the
management of the Emergency Incidents Operations to provide for the
safety and health of responders involved in those activities. 

Rick Ingram:	Does anybody have any heartburn with that? And then we
would be deleting II. So first of all, is One okay as read?

(Group): 	Yes.

Rick Ingram:	Okay. And now, can we all agree to delete II? Okay, we see
heads nodding in the affirmative.

(Group):	Yes.

Rick Ingram:	All right. So that takes care of that (Bill). All right?
And now we'll move on to three, which is now II. So the original Three
is now II. The IMS shall - and we did move, yes, we moved Four up to one
I. Now three has become two I. The IMS shall consist of interactive
components that provide the basis for clear communication and effective
operations. 

	And then it goes on to say what those components are. And then that
will take us straight into the current Five, which is also Transmit
Information, which goes along with Communication. So how does everybody
feel about II now? And…

Grady DeVilbiss:	Hey, Rick? This is Grady (unintelligible). Are you,
you're talking about II, The IMS shall include the following?

Rick Ingram:	Yes.

Grady DeVilbiss:	I just wondered, should we…

Rick Ingram:	Oh, wait. I'm sorry.

(Bill):	II is now, The IMS shall consist of interactive components that
provide the basis for clear communication and effective operations. 

Rick Ingram:	Yes. In your text, that would've been three before. Okay?

((Crosstalk)) 

Grady DeVilbiss:	Yes. 

Rick Ingram:	And then under II we would have, Components shall include
as applicable based on the type of surfaces established in Paragraph E
of this section.

Grady DeVilbiss:	That would become A, (Bill)?

Rick Ingram:	Yes, probably.

(Bill):	It becomes A.

Rick Ingram:	Now, could we combine those?

Lisa Delaney:	So, I have a question about combining. The IMS shall be
compatible with (NIMS) and the (NRS). The components that are then
lifted, aren't those parts of (NIMS)? So could you make that - what we
currently have is II - make that Two? And then, kind of move everything
over because that's going to be one big long section…

Rick.	Yes. That would be good, yes. The Double I could actually be Two.
Is that what you're saying?

Lisa Delaney: 	Yes, that's what I'm saying.

Rick Ingram:	Yes. That simplifies it for us too. And then, under that,
Components shall include. And then we're okay. Is everybody okay with
that list? Does everybody agree so far?

Victor Stagnaro:	I'm okay with it, but as Grady said, I just, I raised
the question because, again, maybe getting in the weeds, but, you know,
a lot of times those that we come back and (unintelligible) control,
those are optional. So I don’t know if we want to put, be so, like,
shall include. You know, sometimes we're, like, (unintelligible) is - if
you have a need to fill that slot and you don't have to. I just, I'm
getting in the weeds here, I understand that. Should we use, shall
include or shall consider?

Rick Ingram:	Well it does say, as applicable, based on the type and
level of surfaces. So, as applicable, gives you, kind of a back door
there.

Victor Stagnaro:	I must have missed that. I'm sorry.

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	Okay. That makes me feel better for yesterday. So,
Component shall include as applicable based on the type and level of
surfaces established in Paragraph E of this section. Common terminology,
modular organization, and I'll ask, since that's part of (NIMS), do we
need all that detail? And I'm just throwing that out there…

((Crosstalk))

(Mac):	Well, the only thing that I would say is that needs to be
compatible and if an organization decides to develop its own incident
management system, I think this provides them guidance with the major
areas that we want them to address.

Rick Ingram:	Okay.

(Mac):	Because (NIMS) has, you know, many sections, (unintelligible) has
many sections, I think, at a minimum what we're saying is, these are the
things that your incident management system needs to include.

Rick Ingram:	And is that a comprehensive minimal list? Or are we
(unintelligible), because the only problem - and I've said this in past
meetings - when we make a list, so we do not want to say, but not
limited to, unless this is the comprehensive list that would be
referenced in (NIMS). See what I mean?

(Mac):	Yes.

Rick Ingram:	So.

((Crosstalk))

(Mac):	Confer to (Andy) on whether or not it needs to say, at a minimum.

Victor Stagnaro:	…or, not limited to.

(Mac):	Right. I think either way, at a minimum, or, not limited to...

Victor Stagnaro:	Right.

(Mac):	…are functionally the same thing.

Rick Ingram:	Okay. As applicable, and, not limited to, were based on,
we're adding another sentence after this (unintelligible). Okay.

(Mac):	And again, it's good to point out that this is development and
not operational, so this is building your plan, so these components
should be addressed in the plan. Whether or not to use them, that's a
different ballgame. But part of the plan should have these.

Rick Ingram:	All right. Okay. So are we all good with that through
Double I, now? Or are we all just so tired, we're giving up now? Okay.
(Unintelligible). Well, we're getting it We're making progress. 

	So now, let's go on to Number Five. That would be Number Three last
time. 

(Kathy Robinson):	Rick? 

Rick Ingram:	Yes.

(Kathy Robinson):	Could you just go back up a little? That sentence
reads really weird. Components shall include but not limited to as
applicable based on the type and level of the surfaces established in
Paragraph E of this section.

Rick Ingram:	Should not be (unintelligible) or do you think that would
help? (Unintelligible).

(Mac):	Components of the IMS.

Rick Ingram:	Okay. Shall include but not be limited to the following.
Yes. So now if we do that, then we'd take out the, as applicable, so. I
agree with you, (Kathy), I was having some heartburn with that too.

((Crosstalk)) 

(Bill):	Okay, so then what are we changing?

(Kathy Robinson):	No, that…

Rick Ingram:	Can we just type a second sentence there? 

(Bill):	 At a minimum the following.

((Crosstalk)) 

(Bill):	At a minimum, as applicable based on the type...

(Kathy Robinson):	Can't be (unintelligible) the minimum.

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	(Mac), you can tell them.

(Mac):	But, is this one of those issues that you guys could, you know,
work it out, the words? I think you get the idea of what the intent is,
or no?

(Kathy Robinson):	Well what he is saying is that we need to decide
whether - does everybody have (unintelligible) available or we just keep
which (unintelligible)?

(Mac): 	The intent of an IMS system needs to have these things.

(Kathy Robinson):	Okay.

((Crosstalk)) 

(Mac):	The application of these things is (unintelligible), maybe, you
know, to the extent to that it is (unintelligible). This is a
description of what an IMS needs to have in order to be an IMS.

(Kathy Robinson):	Okay, so, as applicable (unintelligible).

(Andy):	Right, so yes, this is (Andy). I would get rid of the as
applicable, because in clause number one. At the beginning you say that
it is written and implemented based on the type and level of service.
Everything that flows from that at the beginning of this paragraph is
based on the type of level of service. 

Man:	Yes, I think you only need to say that once right. 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	Can strike it from the whole rest of that. Anything else that
(unintelligible). 

Man:	Put your colon there and delete. 

(Ken Botno):	In reality, those words are not necessary because the, how
much you use doesn’t matter your designing the whole thing. 

Man:	Okay, how does that look to everybody? Okay. All right, so we have
a consensus there? (Kathy), do you like that better or after we got one
thumbs up from (Kathy), anybody else? 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	All right. 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	I think we're, so are we ready to go onto the next one, is
everybody happy? (Andy), are you happy? 

(Andy):	I'm always happy. 

Man:	(Andy)'s happy, all right. Okay, so number, the current number
five. Okay. 

(Ron Gravdienero):	Hold on, back up there because we had it in there, as
the, this will include but not be limited to the following function
(unintelligible) safety. One of those, maybe not at first but somewhere
in there. Maybe safety. 

Man:	Okay, that the (unintelligible). I know when (Andy)… 

((Crosstalk)) 

(Kathy Robinson):	Are these our components? 

Man:	Yes, we do have ten, in IMS, we have safety officer in there. I
think that might be implied, I don’t know. 

Man:	Says that operation procedures we'll (unintelligible) safety
(unintelligible) in the next section. I know that we haven’t had the
safety options

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	It's okay. 

((Crosstalk)) 

(Ron Gravdienero): 	What you could say is, you could change functioning
(unintelligible). Facing is actually a general staff function, which
commanded general staff. Command staff, what you're saying there are the
general staff. Command staff for the individuals that work for the
commander of safety, TIO, liaison, three functions that work directly to
the end of the command. 

(Ken Botno):	Three staff officer's functions. 

(Andy):	Right, staff but their staff. They work directly for command. 

Man:	Could, so I don’t, I know we don’t want change any audible
language in IMS but could we say clear safe or clear communication and
safe and effective operations? 

Victor Stagnaro:	This is Victor, I think if you go back to one, it says,
shall provide short term coordination to the management or mercy
(unintelligible) operations to provide for the safety and health of
responders. Again, I think it's one of those areas that it all flows
from that. If safety is addressed it's an integral part of it. 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	Yes, I think it's just a recommendation, I think later on actually
document and talk about the requirement to assign a safety officer on
every (unintelligible). I think we're addressing that kind of stuff. 

Man:	(Ron), I want to say thanks for bringing it up since I am a safety
and health professional so I appreciate that. 

((Crosstalk)) 

Victor Stagnaro:	It really is a job security for you guys. 

Man:	It is. It really is. 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	(Ron), we'll talk later and franchise for tomorrow, okay. 

(Ken Botno):	Good discussion, if we wanted to just really, and I'm kind
of thinking about what (Ron) was saying. We'd really wanted to make it
obvious there we could add a triple line instead the IMS
(unintelligible) include but not be limited to the following step. Then
you could list safety PIO and liaison. That put safety up there and has
to reporting to plan. 

(Andy):	Isn't that part of the unified command structure? 

(Ken Botno):	It's part of IMS. 

((Crosstalk)) 

(Ken Botno):	Well I really wanted to clear it up. 

Man: 	Let me, I'm going to make a comment here. I think that just having
Nimes in IMS here covers us on so many things already. That I think that
if we try to add too much to this it's just going to be redundant. With
all due respect, are we okay with this as is then? But thanks for that
(Ken), good comment. Let's go onto, if it's all right with everybody ad
you all stop me if you need to. Let's go to number five so we can - thou
may shall establish standard terminology to transmit information to
responders, including strategic modes of operation. Situation reports,
emergency notifications of eminent hazards. 

Man:	Is that not covered by common standard terminology
(unintelligible)? 

Man:	Honestly, I think it would be but. 

Man:	That sounds to me like explanatory language of what standard
terminology is when we were putting a summary in exclamations. 

Man:	I would vote to delete that. I felt that, do we have any other
thoughts on that? All of this is important, everything is important. We
decide what stays and what goes. Same thing with six actually but. 

Woman: 	I think it's redundant and if it can be put in a preamble
explanatory text somewhere else then it's making this, it's streamlining
this.

Man:	Yes. All right, anybody, is everybody okay with deleting that?

Kurt Voigt:	This is Kurt, the only thing that I see in this, in the
slide as appose to the other. Is that this is standard terminology to
transmit information. It's talking about a standard process to transmit
information to responders. Whether it be impending weather reports,
anything, those types of things. As appose to just generally and maybe,
maybe worded horribly but just actually standard problem terminology.
What the transmitted certain amount of information in a standard manner.


Man:	Let me suggest that, what's actually required here is you shall
establish standard terminology. Then the terminology is around what you
would need to transmit which is all wrapped in that stuff. I think that
that’s already probably covered in the common standard terminology
before. You could just explain, you know, EG and then include the
strategic modes of operation, situational reports, etc. is what your
communicating with standard terminology. 

(Ken Botno):	I think you just defined both, separately. 

Man:	Standard terminology is that you need. 

(Andy):	Yes, we get the meaning of it yes. 

Man:	I guess what I'm saying is that it's written poorly but one set of
standard terminology throughout the IMS system. This one is speaking to
transmitting that information in a standard manner. 

Man:	Right, so would it be better to say, back on the other one, common
standard terminology for operational information? Perhaps and then this
is kind of the explanation of what operational information is or? 

Woman:	Terminology (unintelligible). 

Man:	That might be away from this. Okay so what's the suggestion here so
we can keep it going. I don’t know what time it is. 

(Ken Botno):	3:30. 

Man:	Let me suggest that back in, I don’t remember what news number is
but, in 3IA. was this common standard terminology that we amend that to
standard common terminology for operational information. 

(Andy):	Sure, I'd buy that. I'll take, yes. For incident information.
Then strike all of five. 

Man:	Those make sense to everybody? Okay, I think we can finish this
before 4 o'clock. Do we have any, are we going to have any public
comments. I noticed you walked in are you going to be commenting? 

Man:	(Unintelligible). 

Man:	Okay. I couldn’t see your name tag from here. Okay, so we're
striking, we're adding language and adding five. Did you get that done
(Bill), I wasn't (unintelligible). All right, so let's go to six. For
you folks that are familiar with this, with the inspect command, inspect
commander. Do we have any comments on this? Does this make sense as is?
I know we had changed C if I'm not mistaken earlier. Now six would
become what number, okay, five, okay. Do we have any comments on that? 

	Okay, how about five or roman numeral one. We changed some of that
language already, so are we don’t with roman numeral, one. Go ahead. 

Man:	do we need six?

Man:	Okay. 

(Ken Botno): 	If we're following IMS and NIMS, that’s pretty straight
forward. If you look it up it’s going to tell you what the duties and
names of manager or if you actually need to make this list all
inclusive. Should just, I'm wondering do we actually even need that and
what if only on command, you know, there only function that we've
addressed we haven’t touched on (unintelligible) other functions,
that’s not logical. 

Man:	Is (Jim).

(Ken Botno): 	(Andy), I might have missed a reasoning why it's in there
(unintelligible). 

Man:	Yes, that's a great challenge to (unintelligible) thanks. Do we
need this portion? Do we need to restate it basically? 

Bill Hamilton:	I think, this is Bill Hamilton, I think on the one hand
if you're talking about, you know, a fire department (unintelligible). I
don’t necessarily see a work place emergency response organization
going to NIMS to find out exactly what they need to do. 

(Ken Botno): 	Emergency, a work place skill support worker supplier. 

Man:	Not skilled support worker. 

Man:	Industrial fire brigade. Trying to get the right term. 

(Ken Botno):	I would venture to guess if they were to write an IMS plan
or plans to meet this it would probably research ad come up with the
(unintelligible). I'm open for anything. 

Man:	(Unintelligible). 

((Crosstalk)) 

(Ken Botno):	Hospital for everything. 

Man:	I really see (Ken)'s point here is that we're listing out the
instant commander but none of the other functions. That kind of makes me
scratch my head a bit. 

(Matt Debut):	This is (Matt), the only thing I would offer is the thing
(unintelligible) position on the incident. That's as just one of the
issues that we have in past firefighter fatalities that neither no one
in command or we've had individuals who are in command that have no
understanding of what it means to be in command. I think that while it
seems intuitive and redundant to say, well we're following NIMS.
Everybody should know how NIMS works. The fire services performance,
this is the performance standard. The fire service performance is
traditionally been diverse. 

Man:	So I've. 

(Matt Debut): 	In its application of the incident after
(unintelligible). I would just offer that if, that the one thing that
this does do is, I think it elevates the importance of the incident
command position. 

Man:	Can't the entire system? 

(Matt Debut):	Correct. 

Man:	Starts with the in. 

(Matt Debut):	Correct. 

((Crosstalk)) 

(Matt Debut):	(Ted)'s right, we're not eliminating anything else but at
the same time in the very 

((Crosstalk)) 

(Matt Debut):	We do talk about the need to establish a safety officer
and theoretically that's, that could theoretically come out too, though
I would not explore it. 

Man:	Yes, I wouldn't either because I… 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	Okay. 

(Andy):	As a compromise position with shortening a bunch of text at the
beginning of six but leaving that list (unintelligible) training and
capability, or training authority. Does that get enough of the buck
stops here kind of sentiment math that you were looking at. Kind of
shortening up things a little bit, for you. 

Man:	That's covered in some of the text, like activate resources and
that would be, you know, internal or external resources. 

Woman:	(Unintelligible). 

(Andy):	I would say yes; you should certainly keep the first seven. The
EFO shall then take responsibility of the incident commander. You know,
DIC, shall have the qualifications, training and (unintelligible). 

Man:	Does it hurt to leave it? 

(Kathy Robinson):	Yes, (Kathy), it doesn’t hurt to leave it, I'm
finding this whole section to be really cumbersome. If we can simplify
it in any way, I'm all for that. 

Man:	Your vote would be to leave the first sentence or leave the entire
paragraph?

(Kathy Robinson):	Well, I know we're dealing with an issue with
renumbering on the official version on ours. I would actually delete
that whole I. That capability and authority that reform at least the
following. I just think a lot of these things are in some way addressed
by saying what the components should be. Do we have the authority to
authorize anybody on an incident site to determine response strategies.
I mean, it's just making it really complicated to me. 

	On the previous page it has a lot of these things in there and again I
don’t think it hurts to leave it in I just think, I think it's
redundant. 

Man:	Okay. Anybody else? Have an opinion? Doc 40, we got to keep
working, same dates. I have a cat story, if, we won't get this in the
record but I have this story that I could tell you. I usually do that
after lunch to wake everybody up. It's very funny but I'm going to
refrain from that since we have somebody writing on transcript. Okay. 

Woman:	My group has just conveniently not worked for about 20 minutes. 

Man:	That's all right, okay. I'll tell you that before we start
tomorrow, I'll tell you the cat story. Okay, so we have some different
views on this, we'll use, so I know (Bill)'s been saying, will it hurt.
So Bill Warren, the famous author says, will it hurt, will it help, or
will it make any difference at all. That's logic I usually use. Do we
want to take it out, leave it in, will it make any difference either
way. Could it benefit, let's say it this way, could it's staying it
benefit some organizations, (unintelligible). 

	Okay, if it could benefit some of the EFO's and we're hearing this
affirmative from several of the experts. I would suggest that we leave
it in and leave it as is. 

(Kathy Robinson):	How is this, I would just like to personally
understand how it's different from (unintelligible) including sections
on the functions, command operations, planning logistics, and finance.
I'm not seeing how it's enhancing that. Maybe it is just the end of the
day and I'm not…

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	The first. 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	I'll take a stab at that. First one is, that it's talking about the
components of the incident management system. These are components of
the incident management system. The second system that we're talking
about now is the incident commander. Specifically, the incident
commander, as (Matt) said, that's the leader of the entire incident. 

(Kathy Robinson):	I get that, I wasn’t seeing there NCO's, just
thinking it was all just on the same plain there. 

Man:	No, that's okay. 

Man:	That's a valid point. That's a good point. 

Man:	Let me suggest, just I think once we (unintelligible) this list is
here. It's a failure to do just about all of these in actions. As in
some point (unintelligible) or serious injuries. I think that's why
there specifically called out. 

(Kathy Robinson):	I can accept that. 

Man:	All right, so it is 3:40. Let's a, and we're not going to have any
public comments. We got about 30 minutes. If we're good with this as is
and it sounds like a census now, leave it okay. Thanks (Kathy), though
for bringing it up, excellent. Number seven, which will now be some
other number. Each ESO shows available (unintelligible) implement mutual
laid agreement with other ESO's, do we like that? 

(Andy):	Yes. 

Man:	Let me offer a suggestion on (unintelligible). We talked about just
a little bit with the skill support (unintelligible). I think that this
action actually belongs back up in the front as your developing your
plan for your community. Figuring out what resources and services etc.
sometimes you're going to say, I need to get help for more incidence.
That's your mutual aid piece. Sometimes I need to get help for certain
incidence from a skilled support employer. That, these two things should
be in parallel up in the front as your planning for your community. 

Man:	Your saying, move this to E. 

Man:	Yes, so I think it's still there, I think there needs to be another
one that's in parallel for, to develop written and implied agreement
with skill support employers. For necessary services (unintelligible)
type of level, yada, yada, yada. Both of those belong up in your
planning document. 

Man:	Move, so your suggestion is to move ELM seven to E, I'm going to
let the team take care of that. Do we have any…

Man:	Right and add a parallel one for skilled support employers. 

Man:	Okay. 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	All right. Does everybody agree with that? (Matt), I see the wheels
turning, does that work for you? 

(Matt Debut):	Yes, I'm fine. 

Man:	Okay, then that would take us, I would assume also, A and B, 8 or. 

Man:	I think. 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	Mutual aid agreement. 

(Andy): 	Yes, I think seven I (unintelligible) begin. That's the
liability services, that’s where like the planning. When you get into
some of the operational stuff, I think that maybe should be going here.
Where the ESO has mutual aid agreements, or agreements with. Skilled
support employers, they shall address, you know, infinite management
(unintelligible) shall address. 

Man:	Okay. Your saying just to move. 

((Crosstalk)) 

(Matt Debut):	Elm seven only up there. 

(Andy):	Move seven I

Man:	And seven I. then two would become. 

(Andy):	I'm debating because (unintelligible) seven. (Unintelligible)
level of service. 

Man:	It's referring back to E anyway. I would think you could move all
of that. 

(Andy):	Yes, actually maybe all of it could go. 

Man:	I think all of it could. 

(Andy):	Yes. 

Man:	That would take us down to A, to establish a plan for sharing of
resources. That might be a, that might need to stay. 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	(Unintelligible). 

Man:	A and B okay, so all of that would go up to E. Now we have eight,
want to ding that surge cord back resources on a regional level but
(unintelligible) Multi agency coordination systems. (Unintelligible)
coordination's systems update the (coordinational) support between other
ESO's and jurisdictions. That go into, that's, yes. Victor, since your
leading that team, would you take that one on as well? 

Victor Stagnaro:	All seven (unintelligible). 

Man:	All right, that takes us up to (Ian), emergency operations. That's
a good stopping point in my opinion. 

Man:	Hey Rick?

Rick Ingram:	Yes. 

Man:	I think I heard my subcommittee chair there. Victor and you, we're
going to take this (unintelligible) as well. 

Rick Ingram:	(Unintelligible) chairman. 

Man:	Yes, co-chairs. 

((Crosstalk)) 

Victor Stagnaro:	Seven is probably really easy. I think that if you look
at seven you got mutual aid agreements. If you just take it with other
ESO's and skill support employers. As necessary, all of these things,
you know, are appropriate there. You talk about, or we talk about this
already. You know, legal issues, technical issues, cost. There's a whole
bunch of things that are already basically written there that are
applicable to either one. You could probably just take it, you know,
again, with other ESO's or SSE's and then just move it. 

Man:	Well figure it out. 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	As you do that Victor you're going to come up with a new title for
that section. (Unintelligible) emergency service capability. 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	Well, so what kind of time frame are you all going to need for
that? 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	Are you doing this thing tomorrow or after tomorrow, Friday? 

Victor Stagnaro:	Well, I know that, this is Victor. I know that (Bill)
and his team is going to have first crack at doing some real relation,
all that. I think, you know, I want to give him some leeway or some
opportunities to feel it. Come in here, but as soon as that portion is
done then we can certainly start getting a subcommittee. Get some
conference calls and get everybody's opinions in there and have some
broader discussions. 

(Kathy Robinson):	Are you trying to turn this into an action item? 

Victor Stagnaro:	IT is an action item already. 

(Kathy Robinson):	Okay. 

Victor Stagnaro:	Just wanted to kind of get some kind of ideas over the
next few weeks. 

Man:	Don’t worry about the view. Just keep loading the wagon I think,
somebody said. 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	That takes us up to (Ian) again, emergency operations. Do we want
to take it over from there tomorrow (unintelligible)? All right, any
last thoughts from anybody? 

(Andy):	Yes, let me foreshadow two discussions for tomorrow. Just so you
can, you know, put on your thinking caps. Issue number one is we're
going to have our economist talk a little bit about one of the handouts
that’s in your packet. Is the breakdown based on, you know, number of
responders in both career and volunteer, based on size of municipality?
We're going to need to have the discussion about, you know, again how
small is too small, particularly among volunteer community. Then how
should we address that. 

	Is that a, you're not covered or is that a, if you're below a certain
size, certain provisions don’t apply and maybe alternate provisions
do. Maybe the medical section changes, because that's one of the big
ticket items. We don’t need to have decisions but we should have some
discussions, get a sense of what people are thinking about these. We're
going to need to write something that, and this is all building towards
eventually the Surefa process, which is that small business and small
entity prospect. 

	We have the guy from the small business administration here yesterday.
Eventually we're all going to ask you all to give us names of small
departments and small volunteer departments around the country. To help
us tackle this question of how do you decide what's economically
feasible for small departments and draw some lines. Want to talk about
that a little bit. It's topic number one. 

	Topic number two is we're going to give you a draft outline for what
the final report of this work group is going to be. After this meeting
concludes tomorrow. We're going to have to start writing some language
to make sure that you all are comfortable and have a chance to review.
This is the report that will go from this group to Nacosh. If there
issues or topics that you think you want to make sure are written down
and memorialized to capture this group's sentiment, so that it's in the
public record. The report is the place to do it. 

	Well talk a little bit more tomorrow about the report and what the
process looks like going forward. Again we have between now and the next
meeting in September to make sure that we've got a draft report that
everybody is getting comfortable with. So that by the end of the
September meeting we have something that people can live with, support
and Rick and (Lemont) can carry forward to the full Nacosh. Just start
thinking about what you're going to want in the report. That's the other
topic for tomorrow. 

(Ken Botno):	We did one on, or for the last Nacosh, I think about two or
three weeks ago. That went over pretty well, I think, it was brief, but
it went over pretty well. We've practiced a little already. We do want
you to have your say in this. You've done a lot of hard work. 

Man:	Rick, this is (unintelligible). I have a request if it's possible
and not a great deal of work. I get totally lost in the document
sometimes as we're bouncing so many segments. Is it possible just to get
a very brief outline, even if it's just a major letters and see if they
flow one to the other? Oh I got one, never mind. 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	I hadn’t seen it, thank you Lisa. There goes my gold star. 

Rick Ingram:	That's all right. 

Man:	Yes, I was just having so much trouble and trying to figure out if
it's going the way we want it to. I see it now and I will pay attention
and look at it, 

Rick Ingram:	There are a couple of sections we moved around there but…

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	Tomorrow we're not here right? We're in another. 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	Same room. 

Man:	So much closer to the cafeteria. 

Man:	Okay. 

Man:	All right, so take your stuff with you. 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	You all will take care of the name changes? 

((Crosstalk)) 

Man:	Hello? You're adjourned for today, hello. 

END

NWX-DOL OSHA 

Moderator: Gretta Jameson 

07-13-16/3:11 pm CT 

Confirmation # 9255920 

Page   PAGE  \* MERGEFORMAT  1 

