Earlier this month the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has announced in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register its plans to require improved worker protection from tripping, slipping and falling hazards on walking and working surfaces currently in subparts D and I of 29 CFR 1910. A public hearing on the revised changes will be held after the public comment period is over.

The NPRM describes revisions to the Walking-Working Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment standards to help prevent an estimated annual 20 workplace fatalities and more than 3,500 injuries serious enough to cause people to miss work.  A leading cause of worker-related injury and death comes from employees slipping, tripping, or falling from work surfaces such as floors, platforms, portable and fixed ladders, stairs, and ramps. Employees may be exposed and unprotected from these hazards or may have a protection system in place but are using that system incorrectly.

According to OSHA the current walking-working surfaces regulations allow employers to provide outdated and dangerous fall protection equipment such as lanyards and body belts that can result in workers suffering greater injury from falls. Construction and maritime workers already receive safer, more effective fall protection devices such as self-retracting lanyards and ladder safety and rope descent systems, which these proposed revisions would also require for general industry workers.

The current walking-working surfaces standards also do not allow OSHA to fine employers who let workers climb certain ladders without fall protection. Under the revised standards, this restriction would be lifted in virtually all industries, allowing OSHA inspectors to fine employers who jeopardize their workers’ safety and lives by climbing these ladders without proper fall protection.

Here is a little background:

• Subpart D contains standards for walking-working surfaces and was adopted in April of 1971 in accordance with Section 6(a) of the OSH Act. The primary sources for subpart D were several pre-1971 editions of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) consensus standards. There has been little change to the standard in subpart D since its initial adoption.
• Some early OSHA walking-working surfaces standards were developed with little consideration given to the consistency among the requirements applicable to general industry, shipyards, and construction. As a result, there are different requirements for similar, and sometimes identical, hazards in different industries.
• Existing subpart D is organized such that its sections are often redundant and difficult to use. Reducing redundancy makes subpart D clearer and easier to read, facilitating workers’ and employers’ understanding and application of the rule.
• In 1973, OSHA published a proposed revision of subpart D that was withdrawn in 1976 because, in the Agency’s view, it had become outdated and did not reflect then-current information. In 1990, OSHA published another proposed rule to reorganize, update, and clarify the subpart and add personal fall protection requirements to subpart I, which regulates personal protective equipment. In 2003, the rulemaking record was reopened and several issues were raised. Comments to the record indicated that the 1990 proposed rule was outdated and did not give adequate consideration to newer technology. In 2005, the decision was made to completely redraft the proposed rule. The 1990 proposal was not withdrawn, and therefore is still on record today as a proposed rule
• Subpart I contains standards for personal protective equipment, but it does not currently address personal fall protection systems.

Overview of Proposed Subparts D and I:

• OSHA estimates the proposed rule would prevent 20 workplace fatalities per year, and over 3,700 injuries per year that are serious enough to result in days away from work.
• Subpart D would be reorganized in a clear, logical manner, thereby facilitating compliance and enhancing employee protection.
• The proposed rule would eliminate duplication and extensive specification of requirements, while emphasizing performance-based criteria; for example, the proposal would incorporate the construction scaffolding standards, which would eliminate the need for most scaffold specifications in general industry.
• A new section would be added to subpart I that provides criteria for fall protection equipment. This new section would make the general industry standards consistent with existing construction and maritime standards regulating fall protection, as well as current industry practice, and give clear standards on fall protection PPE to employers.
• Compliance flexibility would be provided for the mitigation of fall hazards; for example, proposed subpart D would require fall protection, but would provide options for compliance such as travel restraint systems and designated areas for fall protection when appropriate. Subpart I would provide criteria on the proper use of personal fall protection systems when used by the employer.

Click here to view video comments by Dr. Michaels
 

BRAINTREE, Mass. - The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited Misdea Enterprises LLC, a Weymouth, Mass., masonry contractor, for alleged willful and serious violations of safety standards after an employee fell 30 feet while climbing a scaffold at a jobsite located on Summit Street in Brookline, Mass. The company faces a total of $61,600 in proposed fines.

OSHA’s inspection found that the scaffold lacked a ladder or other safe means of accessing its upper levels and the workers were not supplied with fall protection while working on the scaffold. Employers must provide fall protection for each employee on a scaffold more than 10 feet above a lower level.

These conditions resulted in OSHA issuing two willful citations, with $56,000 in proposed fines, against the masonry company. OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health.

“Falls are the leading cause of death in construction work, and employers must take all required steps to prevent and minimize this potentially deadly hazard,” said Brenda Gordon, OSHA’s area director for Boston and southeastern Massachusetts. “Safe working conditions must not and can never be a matter of luck.”

In addition, OSHA determined that the scaffold was not fully planked, which created an additional fall hazard. Furthermore, the agency found that workers were threatened by electrocution, since the scaffold was located less than 18 inches from uninsulated and energized power lines. These conditions resulted in two serious citations with $5,600 in fines. OSHA issues serious citations when death or serious physical harm is likely to result from hazards about which the employer knew or should have known.

Detailed information on construction fall and scaffolding hazards and safeguards is available online at http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/fallprotection/index.html and http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/scaffolding/construction.html.

Misdea Enterprises has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and proposed penalties to comply, meet with the OSHA area director or contest the citations and penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. This inspection was conducted by OSHA’s Braintree Area Office; telephone 617-565-6924.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to assure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.

Question: We have found that in certain circumstances, having a ladder in a trench box makes it difficult to provide our employees with enough room to work safely while installing underground drain, sewer, and water pipes. We would like to institute the following alternative procedure during those instances: (1) Once the employees have used the ladder to enter the trench box, the ladder will be removed and kept ready for use at the exit point just outside the box; (2) Two workers trained in the procedure will remain at the exit point just outside the box so that they can immediately lower the ladder in the event of an emergency or when the employees otherwise need to egress the trench; (3) The two workers outside the trench would be in uninterrupted communication with the workers inside the trench for the period during which the ladder has been removed. 

A Job Hazard Analysis would be provided to all superintendents detailing the basic job steps, potential hazards, and this procedure in the event the ladder is removed, which includes training for two workers who will be responsible for removing the ladder, communicating with the worker(s) inside of the trench, and inserting the ladder in case of an emergency. Would this be in compliance with 29 CFR 1926.651(c)(2)? 

Answer: Section 1926.651(c)(2) states:

Means of egress from trench excavations. A stairway, ladder, ramp or other safe means of egress shall be located in trench excavations that are 4 feet (1.22 m) or more in depth so as to require no more than 25 feet (7.62 m) of lateral travel for employees. [Italics in original, emphasis added]

Thus, §1926.651(c)(2) requires a safe means of egress to be located in trench excavations that are 4 feet (1.22 m) or more in depth. Please note that §1926.651(c)(2) does not exclusively require the use of ladders during trenching activities; a “stairway, ramp, or other safe means of egress” may be utilized. However, regardless of the means of egress employed, it must be available for use by the employees at all times. 

In an emergency situation, the system you describe would involve a delay between the occurrence of the need, the recognition by the employees outside of the trench of that need, and the time it would take to lower the ladder. Also, the complexity of such a system makes it inherently more susceptible to failure than a simple requirement to have a ladder or similar means of egress in place in the trench. Consequently, the system you describe would not be considered an “other safe means of egress” under 1926.651(c)(2). 

You indicate in your question that maintaining a ladder in the restricted space within the trench box in certain situations would create a greater hazard. However, in light of the necessity for immediate egress in the event of an emergency, we are unaware of safety problems that would be caused by the presence of the ladder that would pose a greater hazard than its absence. 

Richard E. Fairfax, Acting Director
Directorate of Construction

Last month OSHA issued a letter of interpretation clarifying the use of a stepladder as a straight (non-self-supporting) ladder even if the bottom of the ladder is footed.

Letter #200801220-8196

Re: Using a stepladder as a non-self-supporting ladder

Question: 29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(4) requires ladders to be used only for the purpose for which they were designed. Some manufacturers have indicated a concern that a self-supporting ladder might slip out and cause someone to fall if it is used as a non-self-supporting ladder.

Scenario: A stepladder (which is a type of’ self-supporting ladder) is used as a non-self-supporting ladder, but the bottom of the ladder is either “footed” (that is, another person keeps their foot on the bottom to keep the ladder from slipping) or the ladder is tied off at the bottom to prevent the bottom from slipping out.

Would the use of a stepladder as described above violate 29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(4)? If so, would such use be a de minimis violation?

Answer: In 29 CFR 1926 Subpart X, 1926.1053(b)(4) states:

Ladders shall be used only for the purpose for which they were designed. [Emphasis added]
Thus, using a stepladder as a non-self-supporting ladder would violate §1926.1053(b)(4) if the ladder were not designed for that purpose. The particular design of a stepladder varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. Therefore, whether or not the scenario you describe constitutes a violation of §1926.1053(b)(4) would depend on whether such use is consistent with the purpose intended by the manufacturer.

It is our understanding that self-supporting ladders, including stepladders, typically, are not designed to be used as non-self-supporting ladders unless otherwise indicated by the manufacturer. For example, note that paragraph 8.3.1.2 of ANSI A14.1-1982 and ANSI-ASC A14.1-2007 state that, “[s]elf-supporting ladders shall not be used as single ladders or in the partially closed position” [emphasis added].1 Note, also, that ANSI-ASC A14.1-2007 defines “single ladder” as a “non-self-supporting portable ladder, nonadjustable in length, consisting of one section.” Statements from manufacturers indicating a concern that a self-supporting ladder might slip out and cause someone to fall, if used as a non-self-supporting ladder, would be consistent with these ANSI provisions.

Typically, having a coworker hold the ladder, or using rope to attempt to restrain the ladder at its base, would not be considered substitutes for this requirement. We note that, for example, slip-out is not the only hazard that can result from using a ladder differently than in accordance with its design.

Furthermore, 1926.1053(a)(2) states:

Ladder rungs, cleats, and steps shall be . . . level . . . when the ladder is in position for use. [Emphasis added]
Stepladders are typically designed so that the rungs are level when the ladder is in the open and locked position and the ladder is placed on a stable and level surface. Consequently, it is likely that positioning a stepladder for use as a non-self-supporting ladder would result in the ladder’s rungs being out-of-level, which would violate 1926.1053(a)(2).

Sincerely,

Richard E. Fairfax, Acting Director
Directorate of Construction

Top Stories

Federal OSHA issued three Mueller Industries Inc. subsidiaries in Fulton Mississippi 128 citations for allegedly exposing workers to safety and health hazards. The privately-held corporation headquartered in Memphis, Tenn., owns and operates 20 facilities located in eight states and two foreign countries.

OSHA began its investigation in July 2009 after a maintenance worker employed by Mueller Copper Tube Co. Inc., a subsidiary of Mueller Industries, was killed, and two other workers were injured when naphtha, a flammable liquid of hydrocarbon mixtures, leaked from an electric pump and ignited.

“Mueller Industries subsidiaries’ dangerous practices exposed workers at their facilities to a variety of hazards that ultimately took one worker’s life,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels. “The significant fines of $683,000 cannot replace this worker’s life or bring peace to the family, but they will go a long way in letting this employer know disregarding worker safety and health will not be tolerated.”

Mueller Copper Tube has been issued willful, repeat and serious citations. A willful citation with a penalty of $40,000 alleges the failure to repair a corroded live electrical disconnect, which exposed workers to electrical shock. Ten repeat citations with penalties of $150,000 allege failure to guard machinery; unsafe electrical equipment and practices; and failure to label hazardous chemicals. Sixty-nine serious citations, with proposed penalties of $223,500, allege unsafe cranes; fall hazards; unsafe ladders; blocked and inadequate exits; unsafe flammable liquid and compressed gas use and storage; locking out hazardous energy sources during maintenance and service; a lack of machine guards; unsafe electrical equipment and practices; and failure to establish a respiratory protection program.

The initial safety inspection at Mueller Cooper Tube was expanded to include Mueller Fittings LLC and Mueller Packaging LLC, two additional subsidiaries of Mueller Industries. Mueller Fittings has been issued 22 serious citations, with penalties of $64,000, alleging the failure to lock out energy sources, unsafe propane storage and handling, overexposure to noise, unsafe material storage, and the likelihood of exposure to bloodborne pathogens. Eight repeat citations also have been issued, with penalties of $102,500, alleging a lack of machine guarding, electrical hazards and the inadequate labeling of hazardous chemicals.

Mueller Packaging has been issued 12 serious citations, with penalties of $28,000, alleging unsafe crane operation, failing to lock out sources of hazardous energy, hazardous chemical exposures, and overexposure to noise; five repeat citations, with penalties of $75,000, alleging an unsafe forklift modification, electrical hazards and inadequate labeling under the hazard communication standard; and one other-than-serious violation, with no penalty, for an electrical deficiency.

Top Stories

OSHA has cited International Masonry Inc. in Columbus Ohio with proposed penalties totaling $140,800 for alleged serious and willful violations of federal workplace safety standards after investigating the death of a worker.

International Masonry Inc. has been cited with three willful violations. The proposed penalties of $112,000 are for allegedly modifying the manufacturer’s designed outrigger brackets on scaffolding, not ensuring scaffolding was properly secured to prevent tipping and not ensuring bracing was installed according to manufacturer’s recommendations.The company also has received citations for seven serious violations, with proposed fines of $28,000. Some of the violations address the company’s failure to ensure that power industrial-truck operators were properly trained; failure to repair or replace damaged scaffolding components; guardrail not properly installed; and ladders not used as required, according to safety standards. The company also received an other-than-serious violation with a fine of $800 for not maintaining proper recordkeeping logs.

“Fatalities and injuries of workers due to falls from scaffolding are very much preventable if proper safety procedures are adhered to,” said Deborah Zubaty, OSHA’s area director in Columbus. “OSHA will use all legal measures to ensure that employers that willfully ignore OSHA safety regulations come into compliance. We want workers to return home, safe and healthy, at the end of every shift.”

OSHA conducted their inspection in July 2009 following the fatality of a worker who fell approximately 37 feet after the scaffolding he and two other workers were on collapsed. The family owned company, which employs approximately 100 people, specializes in masonry and stonework construction and has had 59 previous OSHA inspections resulting in 41 violations since 1973, including a fatality inspection in 2002.

Top Stories