Thankful for safety regulations
Daniel P. Hunsberger, Sr.
Captain
Stamford (CT) Fire Department
While catching up on my reading, I came upon Tom Thorpe`s “OSHA Reform: A Dangerous Business for the American Fire Service” (Fire Commentary, Fire Engineering, July 1994). I became incensed with the article, which listed seven amendments to the OSHA Act; not one of them should have been objected to as they were by Mr. Thorpe. the tone of his article is indicative of his myopic volunteer employer-oriented point of view.
Several statements really boiled my blood and compelled me to write this letter. The most outrageous statements follow:
“COSHRA proposes to expand the general duty of an employer to provide a safe and healthful workplace for all employees at the employer`s work site. This change threatens the entire U.S. mutual-aid system” (emphasis added).
“The general-duty clause expansion is unnecessary.”
I am amazed each time I hear or read an article critical of any legislation or regulation that would require an employer to improve the fire service workplace. It is obvious that the issue of money for a volunteer department is of great concern to all in the fire service. But it has been used by these same volunteer departments as a shield to protect their “fiefdoms” against a perceived encroachment by paid personnel to the detriment of their own volunteer professional personnel, not to mention the 100,000-plus men and women who serve as paid professionals.
For the last 23 years, I have been in volunteer and paid departments as firefighter and officer. Dramatic changes have taken place over this time because of the push for a safer workplace by true safety professionals. I dread to think of the number of firefighters` lives (volunteer and paid) that would have been lost if it were not for requirements binding the employer to comply with mandated provisions in legislation such as OSHA.
Mr. Thorpe`s argument that flexibility is needed to allow the departments to develop compliance plans illustrates the same mentality of employers who say, “Just trust us to do the right thing”–but never do it. Mr. Thorpe points to the 90-day requirement for “safety” committee meetings as not being flexible enough to be creative or performance oriented. When an unsafe practice exists, it takes only seconds for a firefighter to die, but it takes a family years to grieve. Why should a safety committee go on a retreat (as he suggests) to address issues and draft vision statements? Safety should be in the fire station each and every day, not just every 90 days or once a year.
If the employers were doing the right thing, there would never be a need to legislate safety. Every morning when I awake to go to work, I thank God that my chief, my department, and my union look at safety each and every day. I also thank God that there is legislation in place just in case they forget.
Thomas G. Thorpe responds: I appreciate feedback. It helps me to understand if my message was clear. I will attempt to clarify several points I made and present the case better.
Captain Hunsberger suggests that my positions are “volunteer employer-oriented.” Since we do not know each other, I will add a few details to my biography. This spring, I will be teaching the course Introduction to Occupational Safety and Loss Control for the Emergency Services at Montgomery County (MD) Community College in the fire science program. I proposed in 1989 that the college add a safety course and coauthored the course outline. The course will be offered for the first time this spring.
In October 1992, I was successful in convincing the NFPA to change the hose standard (NFPA 1962) appendix that dealt with hose tower safety designs. The designs were being used incorrectly and creating unsafe conditions.
I developed and teach a recruit firefighter safety and operations orientation to the new volunteers in my department. I believe they need to know from day one the importance of safely performing their duties.
I have served on the local county fire and rescue training committee since 1988. This committee oversees training issues for approximately 2,000 career and volunteer firefighters in my county.
I chose a career in the safety profession. I am paid to develop, implement, and comply with safety and health laws. My views are based on a combination of my experience from working in the safety field and as a volunteer alongside paid firefighters in a combination department. My views may differ from Mr. Hunsberger`s, but that does not make me unprofessional.
I spent several days this past spring visiting with legislative assistants to members of the House of Representatives on Capitol Hill to discuss COSHRA. My basic premise to them was simple: “COSHRA as proposed is too restrictive and punitive.” It would need modifications and changes to be a positive change. Their response was that the bill`s authors were not open to any changes to the legislation. I based my position in the article on a whole package. If future reform bills are more flexible, then I might support the legislation.
The COSHRA proposal is unlikely to pass in the now Republican-controlled Congress.
….My comments on COSHRA were targeted toward the municipal paid fire department. Current OSHA law does not consider volunteers as employees unless a state law specifically requires compliance by the volunteers. Any final reform bill will likely exclude volunteer coverage. The COSHRA proposal and current OSHA law are controlled by the definition of employment.
The General Duty Clause now reads as follows: “The employer shall furnish employment and places of employment free from recognized hazards causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm.”
COSHRA would amend the general duty clause to read as follows: “The employer shall furnish employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to the employees of the employer or to other employees at the place of employment.”
The slight wording change would be impossible to comply with and impossible to enforce. The proposed change will require each employer to comply with safety and health laws for every employee working or present on the site. There could be no end to the level of responsibility created by this change. Where would the buck stop?
Here are two examples of the requirements imposed by such a situation.
EXAMPLE 1
Your engine company is assigned to transport an out-of-service ladder truck to a local welding shop for some minor repairs to a compartment door. Your engine company stays in service and arrives at the welding shop at 10:00 hours. The shop manager greets you at the door to inspect the vehicle. While he examines the door to the compartment, he asks if your personnel have attended the Chemical Hazard Communication Training program he offers twice a week for customers. You advise him that neither you nor any of your personnel have attended the seminar. He then advises you that under the new federal OSHA law, any employee who sets foot on his property must be trained in his hazard communication program. He tells you that the next available training session is one week away, but your shift is not working that day. You agree to return in two weeks to obtain the repaired vehicle and attend the training session. The shop manager advises you that the fire department has agreed to the training and is aware that the vehicle will be held by the welding shop owner until fire department personnel complete the training.
In the scene described above, is it necessary to have your personnel trained in the Chemical Hazard Communication Program offered by the welding shop? Necessary? No. It may be helpful to your staff during a preplan tour, but I do not see the need for this kind of federal regulation just to drop off and pick up a vehicle under repair.
EXAMPLE 2
A home-based business located in a suburban community consists of a computer, a printer, a telephone, a 10- by 20-foot office in a basement, one part-time secretary, and the business owner. The business is classified as a place of employment. One afternoon, the computer malfunctions and a fire starts in this basement. The two office workers leave the home and call the local paid fire department. The fire department arrives, and in the process of extinguishing the fire, one firefighter is traumatically injured after a ground ladder failure. The local OSHA office is notified and an accident investigation begins. The findings of the investigation reveal that the ladder was not tested at required intervals. The fire department is cited and fined by OSHA. The home-based business owner is also cited and fined for the ladder`s not being tested. The business owner had employees at this place of business, and the firefighters were employees. Will the enforcement of this ladder test requirement compel the home business owner to conduct firefighting operations safely next time? No, I do not think the business owner would ever call the fire department again.
There are certain situations where it is necessary to hold a host employer to a higher degree of accountability, such as in chemical plants and at construction sites. However, I believe it is unnecessary to require this amount of accountability in every place of employment. The safety problem in chemical plants was addressed with the promulgation of the OSHA process safety standard. This standard requires chemical plant employers to review chemical processes and conduct these processes safely. OSHA has recently (Fall 1994) administratively refocused its compliance staff to address only construction sites where the worst problems exist (such as falls and electrical).
I would appreciate your comments. I can be reached through Fire Engineering.
