of the worker or others and the appropriate PPE, I don’t know about
the – could cause the appearance of symptoms of complications – I
don’t know if Kathy, you might speak to that or not.

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

Man:	That sounds more realistic to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Man:	Right.

Man:	That makes sense to me at least.

Man:	Yes, that makes sense to me too.

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

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

Man:	Okay, everyone good with that?

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

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

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

Man:	Yes, it should be.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Or endanger the safety.

Man:	Okay.

((Crosstalk))

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

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

Man:	Am I speaking into the mic?

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Oh sorry, (Spencer).

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

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

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

Man:	Normally we have been using shall.

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

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

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Okay.

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

Man:	That’s okay.

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

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Man:	Okay, Bill.

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

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

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

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

Bill Hamilton:	Is that what you?

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Lisa Delaney):	Yes.

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

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

Man:	Oh, okay, I understand.

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

((Crosstalk))

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

Woman:	I think that’s a reasonable suggestion.

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

Man:	Correct.

(Spencer):	Which would.

((Crosstalk))

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

Man:	3ID.

((Crosstalk))

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

Man:	Yes, so you just want to switch.

((Crosstalk))

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

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

Kathy Robinson:		Yes.

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

((Crosstalk))

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

Man:	Yes, you’re right.

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

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

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

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

Man:	Yes.

Man:	Simple reformatting.

Man:	Okay.

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

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

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

Kathy Robinson:		Right, that’s correct.

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

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

(Lisa Delaney):	Both ways.

Man:	Both ways, yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Spencer):	Yes, excellent.

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

(Spencer):	Excellent.

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

Woman:	Have you implemented the fatigue management program?

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I guess the short answer would be yes.

((Crosstalk))

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

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

	Bill, did you have a question? Bill?

Bill Warren:	No.

(Spencer):	Okay.

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

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

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

(Spencer):	Okay.

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

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

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

Woman:	(Unintelligible).

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

Man:	Okay.

(Spencer):	Does that make sense Matt?

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

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

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

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

(Spencer):	It’s already in there.

Rick Ingram:	I apologize. I didn’t…

(Spencer):	Paragraph (10).

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

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

Man:	No. That’s okay.

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

Man:	Yes.

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

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

Man:	Or may only deploy after…

Man:	Yes. Right.

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

Man:	I’m good with that.

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

Man:	(Unintelligible).

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

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

Man:	The ESOs…

Man:	…knowing SSEs…

Man:	…(unintelligible).

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

Man:	Right. Deploy.

Man:	Just say SSWs shall receive site specific briefing.

Man:	(Unintelligible).

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

Man:	This is a briefing?

Man:	You’ve got it.

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

Man:	(Unintelligible).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Man:	Right.

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

Man:	Yes.

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

Man:	So what are you suggesting (Andy)?

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

Man:	For his designee.

Woman:	Cut that one out.

((Crosstalk))

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

Woman:	No. I think…

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

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

Man:	Go ahead Bill.

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

Woman:	Sure.

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

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

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

Man:	(Unintelligible).

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

Man:	Right.

Man:	That their employee receive…

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

Man:	Right.

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

Man:	Right.

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

Man:	Right.

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

((Crosstalk))

Woman:	Before they are deployed.

Man:	Right. Yes.

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

((Crosstalk))

Woman:	…I was anticipating.

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

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

(Spencer):	Would you like me…

((Crosstalk))

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

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

(Spencer):	Before tomorrow?

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

((Crosstalk))

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

Rick Ingram:	I think tomorrow will be fine.

(Spencer):	Okay.

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

(Spencer):	Right.

Rick Ingram:	Okay.

Man:	Rick?

Rick Ingram:	Yes?

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

Rick Ingram:	I agree.

Man:	Okay.

((Crosstalk))

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

(Spencer):	We did.

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

(Spencer):	 Rick? Rick?

Rick Ingram:	Yes? Sorry (Spencer)?

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

Rick Ingram:	I agree.

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

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

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

Man:	Yes. That’s a yes. That’s a yes.

Rick Ingram:	Okay.

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

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

Man:	(Lisa) had something before.

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

Man:	Nobody has uttered words but heads nodded.

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

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

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

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

Man:	Yes.

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

Man:	Okay.

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

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

Bill Warren:	I think it caught up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Man:	Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

(Andy):	The guidance. Yes.

Matt Tobia:	And still accomplish the same thing?

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

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

Man:	(Unintelligible).

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

((Crosstalk))

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

Man:	Right. Right. (Unintelligible).

Man:	(Unintelligible).

((Crosstalk))

Man:	Okay.

Man:	I like that.

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

(Lamont Burton):	Sure.

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

((Crosstalk))

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

Man:	Yes.

Man:	This room? Okay.

((Crosstalk))

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

Man:	It’s 9:00?

((Crosstalk))

Rick Ingram:	I don’t know. Bill?

Bill Warren:	Yes Rick?

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

Bill Warren:	Two floors up, the same area.

((Crosstalk))

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

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

Man:	Take a break. Take a short break.

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

((Crosstalk))

(Sarah):	Hey everyone, sit down.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Man:	Right.

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

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

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

Man:	Good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Man:	so it’ll be a little while yet?

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

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

Michelle Joseph:	(Unintelligible).

Woman:	Would you please identify yourself for the record?

Michelle Joseph:	Yes ma’am.

((Crosstalk))

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

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

((Crosstalk))

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

Mathy Stanislaus:	You’re welcome.

Man:	Go ahead (Ken).

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

Mathy Stanislaus:	This project meaning what you’re…

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

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

Mathy Stanislaus:	I mean clearly (unintelligible)…

((Crosstalk))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mathy Stanislaus:	Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Man:	Okay.

Mathy Stanislaus:	That is available. And we’ve asked all the other
regions who use that initial template, to have similar conversations
with all the other regions around the country. So that conversation is
going on right now.

Man:	Excellent.

Mathy Stanislaus:	And I should note that one of the comments that we
received during the rule making is (unintelligible) to standards of
emergency preparedness (employee) and how we should refer to that in the
rules. (Unintelligible).

Man:	Any other comments or questions? We’re bumping up against our
4:00 close time, but any…

Woman:	Let me ask a quick one. For purposes of the transcript and
record, Mr. Stanislaus name is spelled Mathy, M-A-T-H-Y, Stanislaus,
S-T-A-N-I-S-L-A-U-S.

Man:	And would it be all right if we share your contact information? So
I happen to have your cell phone and home.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	I was being facetious again. So thank you so much Mathy…

((Crosstalk))

Mathy Stanislaus:	You’re welcome. Take care.

((Crosstalk))

Man:	So I think we - so (Lamont), do you want to - are you…

((Crosstalk))

Man:	So we’ll go ahead and - I think we’ll go ahead and with
everybody’s consent we’ll adjourn for today and we’ll see you back
here at the same place at 9:00 am in the morning, and I’ll try to
catch an earlier (cab). Thank you very much.

END

NWX-DOL OSHA

Moderator: Gretta Jameson

07-12-16/3:40pm CT

Confirmation # 9255919

Page  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1