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.
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
> 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
> 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
> 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.
> and choosing which NEC articles to implement can be problematic and
> 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
> place quite some time. Why? Complacency. The "it's a warzone" mentality
> made it OK. That's the real problem with that photo.
> I personally watched it happen for two years. I myself did things that
> never pass inspection in the States. Why, because I wasn't given the
> 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
> "it's a warzone" argument is used whenever it's not convenient to
> it. Civilian contractors should be afforded the same protections as their
> 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
> 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
> to advise management on what needs to be done. I think I'm very
> -- 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
> 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
> assistance toward greater electrical safety.
> When a safety person encounters what seems to be a code violation, I
> he or she should study hard on the reasons that code provision exists, so
> to be able to evaluate in some rough way the degree of hazard, if any,
> 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
> of a U.S. city should be created out in the Iraqi desert, we're not going
> 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.