As noted in the Summary and Explanation for proposed paragraph (a) Scope, the proposed rule would not apply to any employer that is not an Emergency Service Organization (ESO) and does not have a Workplace Emergency Response Team (WERT). Nothing in this proposed rule would require an employer to establish a WERT.
Each employer makes the decision for itself, based on a risk assessment of its facility, about how emergency response services will be provided for its workers at its facility. Employers may choose to rely on emergency services available in the community where the facility is located. Community fire and EMS ESOs are available in varying capacities throughout the country. When an employer is considering how emergency response services will be provided at its facility, response time and community ESO availability may be a concern and should be a factor in the employer’s decision. Additionally, employers should not assume that the local ESO is able to provide all types of services that may be needed at their facility. In particular, ESOs with technical rescue capabilities are not as widely available as fire and EMS ESOs.
Another option would be for the employer to establish a team of facility workers in a WERT to provide some or all of the emergency services potentially needed. Establishing the WERT could be a component of the employer’s 29 CFR 1910.38 compliant emergency action plan when required. For example, if the employer’s facility risk assessment identified the need for technical rescue, but the community ESO provides only fire and EMS services, the employer could establish a WERT for technical rescue only. Or perhaps the risk assessment indicates a need for firefighting services because the facility is located a long distance from the community ESO. To ensure an adequate response time, the employer could establish a WERT to provide the appropriate level of firefighting services at its facility. Under the proposed rule, an employer establishing a WERT is considered a Workplace Emergency Response Employer (WERE). If an employer chooses to establish a WERT, the requirements of the proposed standard would apply.
Here is a break down of those requirements:
PARAGRAPH (C) OF THE PROPOSED RULE SETS FORTH THE CORE RESPONSIBILITIES OF WERES
The purpose of the proposed rule is to reduce team member injuries and fatalities, and a primary means to achieve this intended purpose is to require WEREs to develop and implement an Emergency Response Program (ERP) that encompasses the rule’s requirements. The proposed rule defines an ERP as
a written program developed by the WERE or ESO to ensure that the WERE or ESO is prepared to safely respond to and operate during emergency incidents and non-emergency service situations and to provide for the occupational safety and health of the team members and responders.
The ERP will assist WEREs in ensuring emergency preparedness and compliance with the rule. In developing an ERP, WEREs will be better prepared for emergency incidents by establishing emergency procedures that are maintained in a central plan that can be readily shared with and accessed by supervisors and employees. This will promote a clear understanding and knowledge of the WERE’s emergency procedures and better prepare the workplace for emergency incidents.
Paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of the proposed rule would REQUIRE THE WERE TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A WRITTEN ERP THAT PROTECTS EACH OF ITS EMPLOYEES DESIGNATED TO OPERATE DURING AN EMERGENCY INCIDENT.
In the proposed rule, these designated workers are called team members. The ERP would establish
- the existence of the WERT;
- the basic organizational structure of the WERT, such as management and leadership structure/chain-of-command, and the purpose of the WERT and duties and responsibilities of team members; and
- include how the WERE addresses the provisions in the following paragraphs of the Proposed rule: (c), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (k), (l), (m), (o), (p), (q), (r), and (s).
The ERP MUST include an up-to-date copy of ALL WRITTEN PLANS AND PROCEDURES, except for Pre-Incident Plans (PIPs), required by this section.
The organizational structure would include how the WERT is managed and how it fits into the facility’s operation(s). Most written plans and procedures might only be updated annually unless deficiencies are discovered. The ERP will be revised as these plans and procedures are updated.
PIPs, on the other hand, have the potential to be developed or updated on a much more frequent basis, new versions must be provided to that may be needed at their facility.
Proposed paragraph (c)(3) would require the WERE to CONDUCT A VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT of their facility for the purpose of establishing its emergency response capabilities and determining its ability to match the facility’s vulnerabilities with available resources.
The employer’s facility risk assessment would have already determined whether there is a need or desire to establish a WERT to provide emergency services. Building on that risk assessment, this proposed paragraph would REQUIRE a more in-depth assessment of the facility to determine specific vulnerabilities, such as
- workers who work at elevated locations or the use or storage of large quantities of flammable liquids,
- what resources are needed for mitigation, such as the tools or equipment needed to rescue a worker who is suspended after falling from an elevated location or specialized extinguishing agents for flammable liquids, and
- whether the resources are available at the facility and are sufficient for mitigating the identified vulnerabilities.
Paragraph (c)(4) of the proposed rule would REQUIRE THE WERE, AS PART OF THE FACILITY VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT, TO IDENTIFY EACH STRUCTURE, PROCESS AREA, AND OTHER LOCATION WHERE A PIP IS NEEDED.
Proposed paragraph (m) provides additional information and proposed provisions for developing PIPs, which would be used by team members in emergency incidents, as discussed further in proposed paragraph (p).
Under proposed paragraphs (c)(4)(i) and (ii), the facility vulnerability assessment would identify
- each vacant structure and location at the facility that is unsafe for team members to enter due to conditions such as previous fire damage, damage from natural disasters, and deterioration due to age and lack of upkeep; and
- would require the WERE to provide a means for notifying team members of the vacant structures and unsafe locations.
Such vacant structures and locations are typically unsafe to enter under normal circumstances and are even more dangerous during an emergency incident, particularly when on fire.
Possible means of notification include installing a sign or painting a warning symbol on the wall adjacent to the entrance(s) that is visible to team members before they enter the structure and blocking off an unsafe location. Also, the office responsible for alerting and communicating with team members (emergency dispatch center, safety office, security office) could maintain information on file for the vacant structure or unsafe location and could inform team members when an emergency incident occurs.
The term vacant indicates that no person would be expected to be inside the structure. OSHA believes that team members should only enter an unsafe structure or location during an emergency incident in an attempt to perform a feasible rescue of a person or persons known to be inside.
Paragraph (c)(5) of the proposed rule would REQUIRE THE WERE TO SPECIFY THE RESOURCES NEEDED, including personnel and equipment, for mitigation of emergency incidents identified in the facility vulnerability assessment.
This is an essential step in determining what is needed to address an emergency incident at the facility to ensure that team members have the resources necessary to perform their duties safely and effectively.
In paragraphs (c)(6) and (c)(7), the proposed rule would REQUIRE THE WERE TO ESTABLISH AND DOCUMENT IN THE ERP, THE TYPE(S) AND LEVEL(S) OF EMERGENCY SERVICE IT INTENDS TO PERFORM, AND ESTABLISH TIERS OF TEAM MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES, QUALIFICATIONS, AND CAPABILITIES FOR EACH OF THE TYPE(S) AND LEVEL(S).
The concept of type(s), level(s), and tiers is used throughout the proposed rule. The WERE would use these terms consistently to determine how and to what extent various provisions of the proposed rule apply. For example, requirements for medical evaluations, training, and PPE may differ depending on the type(s), level(s), and tier(s) of service the WERT performs. The WERE would identify whatever tiers are appropriate to their organization.
The type(s) of service(s) might include firefighting, technical rescue, or EMS for example. For firefighting operations, examples of service levels could be an incipient stage, advanced exterior, interior structural, and both advanced exterior and interior firefighting. Tiers of team members could be trainee, incipient stage, advanced exterior, interior structural, and both advanced exterior and interior firefighter, team leader/officer, team manager/chief, or support.
For technical rescue types of operations, examples of service levels could be rope rescue, vehicle/machinery rescue, structural collapse, trench rescue, and technical water rescue. Tiers of team members could be trainee, awareness, operation, technician, team leader/officer, team manager/chief, or support.
For EMS, the level(s) of service could be, for example, Basic Life Support, Advanced Life Support, or another level of pre-hospital care such as aeronautical medical evacuation. As noted above, the proposed rule would not apply to employers who only provide first aid and first aid kits in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.151, Medical Services and first aid. For tiers, positions such as trainee, Emergency Medical Responder (EMR), Emergency Medical Technician (EMT), Advanced EMT, Paramedic, Nurse, Physician, or support.
For the example support tier identified in proposed paragraph (c)(7), OSHA envisions that a team member in this tier would NOT PERFORM ANY MITIGATION DUTIES. Instead, this could be a building engineer who
- checks to make sure the fire pump is functioning correctly while sprinklers are flowing,
- ensures that the smoke exhaust system is effectively exhausting smoke, or
- ensures energy sources are locked out and tagged out during a technical rescue of an employee trapped in a machine.
It could also be a cafeteria worker-team member designated to deliver and provide water and other refreshments at the incident scene, or an employee-team member designated to meet mutual aid WERTs or ESOs at the entrance gate and direct them to the location of the incident.
Proposed paragraph (c)(8) would REQUIRE THE WERE TO IDENTIFY AND DOCUMENT IN THE ERP, WHAT EMERGENCY SERVICE(S) THE WERE ITSELF IS UNABLE TO PROVIDE, AND DEVELOP MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER WERES AND ESOS, AS NECESSARY, OR CONTRACT WITH AN ESO(S), TO ENSURE ADEQUATE RESOURCES ARE AVAILABLE TO MITIGATE FORESEEABLE INCIDENTS.
For example, if a WERE identifies that its facility has tall structures that need an aerial ladder or elevated platform vehicle for firefighting or rescue, but its WERT does not have such a vehicle, the WERE would need to establish a mutual aid agreement with a neighboring WERE or ESO with an aerial ladder or elevated platform vehicle to provide it when needed.
Another example is where a WERE has a permit-required confined space, but its WERT only performs firefighting. The WERE would need to establish a mutual aid agreement with a neighboring WERE or ESO or contract an ESO that provides confined space rescue services.
Proposed paragraph (c)(9) and (c)(10) would REQUIRE THE WERE TO:
- KEEP FOR A MINIMUM OF FIVE (5) YEARS PREVIOUS EDITIONS OF ERP DOCUMENTS required by the proposed rule;
- NOTIFY team members of any changes to the ERP; and
- make the current ERP and previous editions available for inspection by team members, their representatives, and OSHA personnel.
Ensuring that team members have knowledge of and access to the most up-to-date ERP documents is essential to ensuring those documents serve their purpose. The proposed retention and access requirements will also aid OSHA’s enforcement and compliance activities. Availability of OSHA required documents is a long-standing requirement imposed by the agency in its standards and is carried forward from existing 29 CFR 1910.156(b)(1).
PARAGRAPH (D) ESO ESTABLISHMENT OF ERP AND EMERGENCY SERVICE(S) CAPABILITY
Paragraph (d) of the proposed rule sets forth the ESO’S RESPONSIBILITY TO ESTABLISH AND IMPLEMENT AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM (ERP).
An ERP serves the same purpose for ESOs as it does for WEREs; that is, it promotes clear understanding and knowledge among responders of the ESO emergency procedures by maintaining those procedures in a central plan that can be readily shared with and accessed by supervisors and employees. This understanding and knowledge will aid compliance and ensure the protections of the rule will be realized.
Paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of the proposed rule would REQUIRE THE ESO TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A WRITTEN ERP THAT PROVIDES PROTECTION FOR EACH OF ITS RESPONDERS DESIGNATED TO OPERATE AT AN EMERGENCY INCIDENT.
The ERP would include the ESO’s plans for how it will comply with each of the following paragraphs of the proposed rule: (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (j), (k), (l), (n), (o), (p), (q), (r), and (s). The ERP must include an up-to-date copy of all written plans and procedures, except for PIPs, required by this section. Hence, the ERP is a compilation of all documents required by the proposed rule, except for PIPs. Most written plans and procedures might only be updated annually, unless deficiencies are discovered.
The ERP would be revised as these plans and procedures are updated. PIPs, on the other hand, have the potential to be developed or updated on a much more frequent basis, are specific to a particular location, and are required to be available and accessible to team members and responders on incident scenes. As such, OSHA has preliminarily determined it is not necessary for PIPs to also be redundantly included in the ERP.
Proposed paragraph (d)(3) would REQUIRE THAT THE ESO CONDUCT A COMMUNITY OR FACILITY VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF HAZARDS WITHIN THE PRIMARY RESPONSE AREA WHERE THE EMERGENCY SERVICE(S) IT PROVIDES IS/ARE EXPECTED TO BE PERFORMED.
An in-depth assessment of the community or facility would determine specific vulnerabilities. The ESO would be able to determine what resources are available for mitigation, both within the ESO and from mutual aid WERTs and ESOs, and whether the available resources are sufficient for mitigating the identified vulnerabilities.
OSHA believes that most stakeholders are familiar with the concept of primary response area, which may also be known by other terms such as the first-due area. It is the area in which the ESO would be the first in line to be the only emergency service dispatched for an incident requiring a single response vehicle, such as for a dumpster fire that is outside with no exposures, or a person with a minor injury in need of emergency medical attention. In other words, it is the area where the ESO is principally responsible for responding to emergency incidents.
In considering its primary response area, the ESO’s assessment would include a systematic evaluation of the community it services to determine the impact that could be caused by potential emergency incidents, the severity of the impact, and the available or needed resources for mitigation. Such assessment would include risks and vulnerabilities associated with
- the prevailing residential structures; and
- principal structures such as schools, colleges, and universities; hospitals and medical centers; large residential structures and hotels;
- transportation, manufacturing, processing, and warehousing facilities; and
- retail.
It would also include an assessment of the community’s critical infrastructure such as
- available water supply,
- electric power generation and transmission,
- routine and emergency communication, and
- highways and railways.
Natural features such as bodies of water, caves, gorges, mountains, and cliffs would also need to be assessed.
As the note to proposed paragraph (d)(3) explains, an ESO whose primary response area is a community would assess the community it serves. An ESO whose primary response area is, for example: a manufacturing facility, a military facility, a research and development facility, or similar occupational facility or workplace, would assess that facility.
Paragraph (d)(4) of the proposed rule would REQUIRE THE ESO, AS PART OF THE COMMUNITY OR FACILITY VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT, TO IDENTIFY EACH STRUCTURE AND OTHER LOCATION WHERE A PIP IS NEEDED.
Proposed paragraph (m) provides additional information and proposed provisions for developing PIPs, which would be used by responders at emergency incidents, as discussed further in proposed paragraph (p).
Proposed paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (ii) would further require that the community or facility vulnerability assessment identify each vacant structure and location that is unsafe for responders to enter due to conditions such as previous fire damage, damage from natural disasters, and deterioration due to age and lack of upkeep; and would require the ESO to provide a means for notifying responders of the vacant structures and unsafe locations.
Such vacant structures and locations are typically unsafe to enter under normal circumstances and are even more dangerous during an emergency incident, particularly when on fire. Possible means of notification include installing a sign or painting a warning symbol on the wall adjacent to the entrance(s) that is visible to responders before they would enter the structure and blocking off an unsafe location. Also, the emergency dispatch center could maintain information on file for the vacant structure or unsafe location and could inform responders when an emergency incident occurs. The term vacant indicates that no person would be expected to be inside the structure. OSHA believes that responders should only enter an unsafe structure or location during an emergency incident in an attempt to perform a feasible rescue of a person or persons known to be inside.
Proposed paragraph (d)(5) would require that the ESO’s community vulnerability assessment include all facilities within the ESO’s service area that are subject to reporting requirements under 40 CFR part 355 pursuant to the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (also referred to as the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), 42 U.S.C. § 11001 et seq.).
The fact that these types of facilities are subject to reporting to the Local Emergency Planning Committee indicates that they are hazardous, either because the facility handles an “extremely hazardous substance” or because it has been designated for emergency planning purposes by the relevant state or tribal entity (see 40 CFR 355.10). Some of these facilities may have WERTs, in which case,
- the ESO could communicate with the WERT to discuss the likelihood of the need for mutual aid, and
- to obtain a copy of the PIP from the WERT.
In the absence of a WERT-provided PIP, the ESO would need to develop its own PIP to ensure the ESO is sufficiently prepared to respond to incidents at the facilities as required by paragraph (n)(3) of this section.
Proposed paragraph (d)(6) would REQUIRE THE ESO TO EVALUATE THE RESOURCES NEEDED, INCLUDING PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT, FOR MITIGATION OF EMERGENCY INCIDENTS IDENTIFIED IN THE COMMUNITY OR FACILITY VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT.
The provision would also require the ESO to establish in the ERP the type(s) and level(s) of service(s) it intends to perform. This is an essential step in determining what is needed to address an emergency incident in the community or at the facility and would help ensure that responders know what services they are expected to provide when an incident occurs and have the resources needed to perform those services.
In paragraph (d)(7), the proposed rule would REQUIRE THE ESO TO ESTABLISH TIERS OF RESPONDER RESPONSIBILITIES, QUALIFICATIONS, AND CAPABILITIES FOR EACH OF THE TYPE(S) AND LEVEL(S).
The concept of type(s), level(s), and tiers is used throughout the proposed rule. The ESO would use these terms consistently to determine how and to what extent various provisions of the proposed rule apply. For example, requirements for medical evaluations, training, and PPE may differ depending on the type(s), level(s), and tier(s) of service the ESO performs. The ESO would identify whatever tiers are appropriate to their organization. Typically, the ESO will already know what type(s) and level(s) of service it provides and may already have tiers of responders based on responder duties, training, qualifications, certifications, and responsibilities. The type(s) of service(s) might include firefighting, technical rescue, or EMS for example.
For the example support tier identified in proposed paragraph (d)(7), OSHA envisions that a responder in this tier would not perform any mitigation duties. Instead, this could be, for example, an auxiliary/associate responder responsible for providing canteen/refreshment services at incident scenes, a SCBA maintenance technician responsible for performing services at incident scenes, or vehicle maintenance technician responsible for servicing or refueling vehicles at incident scenes.
Under paragraph (d)(8) of the proposed rule, the ESO would be REQUIRED TO DEFINE THE SERVICE(S) NEEDED, BASED ON PARAGRAPH (D)(4) OF THIS SECTION, THAT THE ESO IS UNABLE TO PROVIDE, AND DEVELOP MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS WITH WERES OR OTHER ESOS AS NECESSARY TO ENSURE ADEQUATE RESOURCES ARE AVAILABLE TO SAFELY MITIGATE FORESEEABLE INCIDENTS.
For example, if an ESO identifies that its community or facility has tall structures that need an aerial ladder or elevated platform vehicle for firefighting or rescue, but does not have such a vehicle, the ESO would need to establish a mutual aid agreement with a neighboring ESO with an aerial ladder or elevated platform vehicle to provide it when needed. Another example is an ESO that only provides EMS at the Basic Life Support level. The ESO would need to establish a mutual aid agreement with a neighboring ESO to provide EMS at the Advanced Life Support level to its primary response area.
Proposed paragraphs (d)(9) and (d)(10) would REQUIRE THE ESO TO KEEP FOR A MINIMUM OF FIVE (5) YEARS PREVIOUS EDITIONS OF ERP DOCUMENTS required by the proposed rule; notify responders of any changes to the ERP; and make the current ERP, as well as previous editions, available for inspection by responders, their representatives, and OSHA personnel. Ensuring that responders have knowledge of and access to the most up-to-date ERP documents is essential to ensuring those documents serve their purpose. The proposed retention and access requirements will also aid OSHA’s enforcement and compliance activities. Availability of OSHA required documents is a long-standing requirement imposed by the agency in its standards and is carried forward from existing
29 CFR 1910.156(b)(1).