OSHA has long been working on a standard to protect emergency response workers. These individuals face unique safety hazards in constantly changing and unpredictable settings. The proposed Emergency Response Standard (CFR 29 1910) was written to mitigate and reduce the risks of these hazards. It includes more than the typical first responders and could have a greater potential effect.

Upon issuing the proposal, OSHA indicated, “Current OSHA emergency response and preparedness standards are outdated and incomplete. They lag behind changes in protective equipment performance and industry practices, conflict with industry consensus standards and do not address the full range of hazards facing emergency responders or align with many current emergency response guidelines provided by other federal agencies (e.g., DHS/FEMA). In recognition of the inadequacy of the outdated safeguards provided by the current OSHA standards, the proposed rule seeks to ensure that workers involved in Emergency Response activities get the protections they deserve from the hazards they are likely to encounter while on the job.”

The new standard’s intent is to establish minimum baseline basic protections for workers. Under the proposed rule, the number of individuals and protections put into place would be expanded to apply to anyone that renders emergency medical service or technical search and rescue. This may include emergency service organizations (ESOs), workplace emergency response employers (WEREs) or workplace emergency response teams (WERTs).

If finalized, the new standard would take the place of the agency’s existing Fire Brigades standard, 29 CFR 1910.156, which was put into effect in 1980, and only addresses a small portion of first responders and firefighters. It has never been updated.

Shifting priorities and opposition

OSHA held a public hearing on the proposed Emergency Response Standard. Despite the comment period for this rulemaking closing on Jan. 17, before the new presidential administration took office, efforts to finalize will likely be halted under President Trump. During his first term, there was a policy dictating that for every new rule that is implemented, two existing regulations should be withdrawn. Industry experts expect more of the same over the next four years. 

Several stakeholders oppose the proposed standard, viewing the rulemaking as overburdensome and convoluted. If the regulation does move forward, it would include physical fitness and mental health requirements for some workers. The proposed standard would also make changes to PPE requirements and require significant pre-incident planning, implementation of an incident-management system and post-incident analyses. Companies that rely on volunteer fire departments for emergency response could run into challenges, as well.

Clarity needed

The lack of specific definitions, action levels and exposure limits can be confusing. For example, there are several terms such as “contaminants from fire,” “toxic chemicals,” “known or suspected toxic products,” and “dangerous substances” that have no definition or clarity written within the rule, nor any other reference offered elsewhere in the regulation. Without a clear definition, it is difficult for an employer to determine what OSHA’s expectations will be regarding their responsibilities, actions and compliance.

This rule as proposed would affect electrical workers anytime an incident command structure is in place, which can include situations such as road closures due to downed wires or trees on wires with resulting fires. Line contractors would be exempt during situations such as storm cleanup, though this is only “after emergency response activities have terminated.” 

If the rule is applicable to storm restoration, when does the emergency “terminate?” Does it end when the power is back on, or after cleanup is completed? After a line crew restores power in one area, are they no longer engaged in emergency response or only when all power in the larger area is restored? Many questions need clarification if the regulatory action moves forward. 

According to a blog post by employment law firm Ogletree Deakins, Washington, D.C., “The proposed standard would require employers to generate documentation demonstrating compliance. Given the number of issues that the proposed standard would require the ESO/WERE/WERT to address, the potential volume of that documentation is incredible. When consideration is given to the fact that many of the records at issue are medical or exposure records that must be maintained for the duration of employment plus thirty years, the proposed standard would impose a burden that could overwhelm many smaller and less sophisticated ESOs/WEREs/WERTs.”

Serhii / stock.adobe.com