Bil1, Yes, you nailed it. There is clearly non-existent oversight. There was a common joke amongst the construction workers at my camp. It's sad that working for KBR is more dangerous than the war. Thanks for this specific information, I will pass it on to those lawmakers who will be writing the legislation to get this changed. Ms Sparky http://mssparky.com/ Bill Shirley wrote: > What is interesting is that OSHA and NFPA compliance is already a > requirement of DOD regulations.? If you take AR 385-10 it requires > compliance with OSHA standards in the absence of standards offering equal > or superior protection.? AR 355-90 requires compliance with the NFPA > Standards.? COE 385-1-1 requires compliance with various OSHA, NFPA, ANSI > and other standards.? Contracts in place require compliance with DOD > regulations.? True there are no OSHA area offices, the local fire > departments are not JHAs.? So where is the system broke?? There is a lack > of leadership within the military where recognized standards are not > followed or enforced by commissioned officers and DOD civilians having the > legal authority to do so.??Poor planning, poor execution and an > unwillingness to correct deficiencies before proceeding with the next > project all result in reciginized safety risk being ignored.? When they > put handcuffs on a couple generals for allowing their staffs to build and > mainta! > in unsafe facilities maybe you will see a change.? Firing contractors and > hiring more contractors with the same ineffective oversight will not > solve the problem.? We have met the enemy and he is us. > Bill Shirley > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ms Sparky <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] > Sent: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 3:15 am > Subject: Re: Did Joe Tedesco get them all? > > > > As a licensed journeyman electrician, I will say I rarely question why an > NFPA 70 (NEC) article came into existence. It doesn't matter. It is the > code > requirement and that's the way it will be done. Unless there is a > differentiation between indoors or outdoors, wetlands or desert, to an > electrician the code is the code, no exceptions. > > Your comment: "If all we can say to management is that an electrical code > infrastructure similar to that of a U.S. city should be created out in the > Iraqi desert, we're not going to be perceived as a real working > contribution > to safety in the activity." Electrical theory is no different in the Iraqi > Desert than it is in the U.S. That's why hundreds have been shocked, too > many have died and countless electrical fires have been documented. > Picking > and choosing which NEC articles to implement can be problematic and > dangerous. > > In Iraq the NEC does not apply. It's implemented on a voluntary basis at > best, unless it gets difficult and then not at all. Quality electrical > installations were not a priority, especially with regard to Third county > national sub-contractors. But KBR overlooked it. The DoD and the DCMA > overlooked it. The installation in the photo looks as though it has been > in > place quite some time. Why? Complacency. The "it's a warzone" mentality > has > made it OK. That's the real problem with that photo. > > I personally watched it happen for two years. I myself did things that > would > never pass inspection in the States. Why, because I wasn't given the > proper > tools and material. I was threatened to be fired if I didn't. > > The problem in Iraq is, the NEC and OSHA do not apply legally. Any > implementation is voluntary at best with no independent oversight. The > whole > "it's a warzone" argument is used whenever it's not convenient to > implement > it. Civilian contractors should be afforded the same protections as their > US > co-workers. To start with, a little OSHA protection would be great. > > I am working to get the laws changed so that US citizens working on US > Government funded projects, > ie new US Embassy's, consulates, military > facilities will have OSHA protections among others. Any suggestions on > that > would be welcome. > > That's where safety starts. By empowering the employees to do the right > thing. That's not what's going on there. > > Ms Sparky > > > > "I still see hardly a single comment anywhere that identifies something > that's wrong in the picture and then explains why it's a hazard and > identifies steps that should be taken to correct what's wrong. > > I don't say this just to be contrarian. When a safety person/electrical > inspector is requested by management to review an installation, the need > is > to advise management on what needs to be done. I think I'm very > experienced > -- have had some electrical safety involvement for several decades and by > myself created training on the NEC for research technicians, and conducted > the training, going back to the time that OSHA came into being. And I find > myself quite unsure of what the commentors believe they see is wrong in > the > picture. > > Listing generally worded provisions from a Code of questionable > applicability, which presumably include code requirements that the writer > thinks are not being met, seems quite possibly to create more confusion > than > assistance toward greater electrical safety. > > When a safety person encounters what seems to be a code violation, I > believe > he or she should study hard on the reasons that code provision exists, so > as > to be able to evaluate in some rough way the degree of hazard, if any, > that > results from that code infraction. A code provision that exists to protect > the building against electrical fire hazard, for example, isn't going to > make a great deal of sense or be perceived as a hazard in an installation > outdoors with just bare bones protection from the elements. If all we can > say to management is that an electrical code infrastructure similar to > that > of a U.S. city should be created out in the Iraqi desert, we're not going > to > be perceived as a real working contribution to safety in the activity." > > C Herb Hickman, CIH, CSP > > Opinions mine and not necessarily those of any employer or associate. >