Posts Tagged ‘OSHA’

That Old Hard Hat Rule & A Few Exceptions

Monday, December 14th, 2009
Trim carpenter set up to work by himself with his hard hat parked at the door.  Hmm… Please don’t hang your hat on the switch wiring even though it’s not hot, and don’t run your cord across the metal door frame unless you protect it. (Photo: Jan Thomas)

Trim carpenter set up to work by himself with his hard hat parked at the door. Hmm… Please don’t hang your hat on the switch wiring even though it’s not hot, and don’t run your cord across the metal door frame unless you protect it. (Photo: Jan Thomas)

I keep a list of what I call “challenge questions.”  When I’m looking for a blog topic I can always find inspiration as well as frustration by looking at my list.  When I’m walking a construction site and encounter crews who have not worked with me before—and don’t already know my response, I’m often asked one of these questions.

Here is an example:  “So, I’ve always been told I don’t have to wear a hard hat if no one is working around me.  Why are you telling me different now?”

Those of you who have been reading my blog know my bottom-line answer to this and similar questions is – “Our company/site policy goes beyond OSHA standards.  In this case, our policy is to wear hard hats 100% of the time with only a few exceptions.”  It’s the part about “a few exceptions” that leads to long discussions, which I try to use as “teaching moments.”

I start by acknowledging that the main OSHA hard hat requirements are found in two places – General Industry’s §1910.135 & Construction’s §1926.100.  Both require employers to determine the need for PPE and sometimes this leads to the evaluation that there is no possible danger if a person is working alone, or in the cab of a well-protected piece of equipment, or under a cabinet fitting a fixture.  And, yes, OSHA said in 1983 that “where employees are not exposed to possible head injuries, head protection is not required by OSHA standards.”

Yet, typical hazards are not always anticipated, such as the hot electrical connection not seen yet touched by the worker’s head, or the rock that ricochets into the open window of the excavator’s cab, or the worker’s own dry wall hammer bouncing off a stud into his forehead.  Ouch.

Believe me, I’ve seen all of these happen more than once.  That’s why I try to convince my clients and all I contact in workplaces to wear their hardhats all the time (okay, except for maybe when they are sitting in the lunch trailer or in their car taking a nap).

  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • LinkedIn
  • Ping
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Share/Bookmark

Protecting the Public in Proximity to Construction Sites

Friday, December 4th, 2009

A city block of construction with security fences and traffic control devices (Photo: Jan Thomas)

A city block of construction with security fences and traffic control devices (Photo: Jan Thomas)

We usually think about safety on construction sites with the focus on workers.  The federal or state OSHA jurisdiction on commercial construction begins where an employer-employee relationship exists.  In addition, CPL 2-0.124 –Multi-Employer Citation Policy dictates overall jobsite safety between contractors.  So, when we need some basic guidance on safety we grab the OSHA standards. 

But what about safety of the public – on adjoining streets or sidewalks, or across the fence in the school yard, or even across the intersection?  What about invited visitors on site?  OSHA is almost silent.

Some of the OSHA rules for protecting workers do secondarily protect the public.  For example, OSHA requires placarding of parked equipment, barricading of open trenches or the swing-radius of a crane, and using flaggers at traffic work zones. But these are few and indirect.

What may be needed is an actual plan for public safety, especially at sites where the public is ever present (city streets) or in high-risk areas (near schools).  Common sense may help guide such a plan but you may want to also check out a little-known consensus standard – ANSI/ASSE A10.34-2001 (R2005)  Protection of the Public on or Adjacent to Construction

Here is a quick review.  The public is defined as “All persons and property not affiliated with the construction project.  This includes invitees to the construction project who are not employed by the project constructor or contractors.” What about trespassers?  They are excluded from the definition of the public.  But, be sure to put up those No Trespasser signs to defend your property rights.

The consensus standard provides guidelines for developing a site-specific public hazard control plan and emergency action plan.  Fourteen specific hazards are identified and the standard’s appendix provides a checklist.  The consensus standard is fairly short but is a great place to start your thought process for extending safety beyond the boundaries of your construction site.

(Note: this was first posted on November 6, 2009 at the Construction Law Musings blog – see http://constructionlawva.com/.  My thanks to Chris Hill for continuing to invite me to provide guest posts).

  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • LinkedIn
  • Ping
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Share/Bookmark

Looking a Little Closer at Laser Safety

Monday, November 23rd, 2009

Laser warning sign, laser safety glasses and safety instructions – all rare sights in the workplace. (Photo: Jan Thomas)

Laser warning sign, laser safety glasses and safety instructions – all rare sights in the workplace. (Photo: Jan Thomas)

Lasers are taking over! They are incorporated into kid and pet toys and will probably be a very popular holiday season gift for the DIY tool collector. Their presence in the industrial and construction worksites has been growing too. But, I believe workplace safety awareness has actually decreased as laser use has become more common place.

Lasers used to be a rare sight on construction sites. When they were used, a warning sign was often posted. The user was sometimes “certified” by the manufacturer. Other workers stayed out of the posted area. The laser safety glasses were in the carrying case although hardly ever used. And, no one really knew much about the potential dangers other than “you shouldn’t look into the beam.”

Most of these conditions have remained the same except that I now see more lasers in use, no warning signs, and a lack of training or qualification to use. But, the OSHA laser standard remains the same and requires all of this – see 29 CFR 1926.54.

Typical leveling lasers seen on construction sites today are rated at less than 1mW and therefore fall into a Class II category as per the Laser Hazards- Section III: Chapter 6 of the OSHA Technical Manual.

Quoting from it “CLASS II: low power visible lasers which emit above Class I levels but emitting a radiant power not above 1 mW. The concept is that the human aversion reaction to bright light will protect a person.” The referenced “human aversion reaction” is a fancy way to say “eye blinking.”

So, bottom line…. We want the laser operator trained with documentation. The user is to post a notice telling us what Class laser is in use. All employees in the area need laser safety awareness training. And, what about those weird red glasses? If the equipment is Class III or IV then we will probably need special laser eye protection depending upon the exposure. BUT, if it is Class I or II – everyday construction laser – then all we need to do is be aware a laser is in use and not try to out stare it.

By the way, I’ve not referenced OSHA’s Technical Manual on this blog before – it’s the official go-to guide for the OSHA compliance officers and therefore is of use to us.

  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • LinkedIn
  • Ping
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Share/Bookmark

Tying off on Scissor Lifts in Virginia

Monday, November 16th, 2009
Only one of several types of tie-off instructions put on modern scissor lifts. (Photo: Jan Thomas)

Only one of several types of tie-off instructions put on modern scissor lifts. (Photo: Jan Thomas)

Last Friday I received a call from a client’s superintendent asking me to go over the reasoning and authority for tying off on scissor lift and other personnel hoists. This is the same question I’ve been answering for years and I’ve been answering it in the same way for years… specifically, “Despite what OSHA says, if the manufacturer has provided anchors points, please use them as they have been put there for your safety!”  

In Virginia, in the fall of 2006, my answer became a little stronger as I could now point to the “authority” of VOSH when someone wanted to argue with me that OSHA doesn’t require tie off on scissor lifts. 

Earlier this year I wrote our clients a memo on this topic – it applies to industrial worksites, construction and all sectors of employment in between.  Here is a link to that memo

By the way, the superintendent was being questioned by one of his disbelieving subs.  So I reminded him that the true answer to “Why do we have to tie-off?” is “Because it’s our rule!”

  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • LinkedIn
  • Ping
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Share/Bookmark

What will they think of next?

Friday, October 30th, 2009
Jobsite trying to do the right thing by getting electrical power in early.  (Photo: Jan Thomas)

Jobsite trying to do the right thing by getting electrical power in early. (Photo: Jan Thomas)

Sometimes you just have to stand back and see the humor in a situation.  Laugh a little and then go talk to someone about the dangers.  In this case, the GC asked the electrical contractor to provide the main panel and some GFCI outlets early in the job (that’s good).  The concrete guys hadn’t gotten there yet, but were on their way (that’s typical).  What to do with the panel box set on the ground already wired and running the temporary lights?  Here is one solution – not so typical.

After checking out the unusual suspension system, I found that there was no strain on the actual wiring although the height of the service entrance cable and its installation needed to be improved.  The ladder access to reach the main breaker might be a little short but that depended upon who was using the ladder.  Framing and other construction exposures were going to be a little tricky around this whole installation.

The pad got laid and cured, the electricians came back and reset the panel, the superintendent was asked not to be so creative next time, and I got a funny picture.

  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • LinkedIn
  • Ping
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Share/Bookmark

Ban the Wire!

Tuesday, October 20th, 2009
Good example of “gambling with wire” while stringing up temporary lights (Photo: Jan Thomas).

Good example of “gambling with wire” while stringing up temporary lights (Photo: Jan Thomas).

 

While teaching electrical safety in our OSHA 10/30 classes I like to throw out the question “Who thinks putting metal and potentially exposed electrical together is a good idea?”  On all worksites I’ve seen a slow evolution to the use of nonconductive tools and equipment.  For example, the replacement of metal ladders for fiberglass, the repair of extension cords with molded plastic replacement plugs, the use of plastic cages on temporary light strings instead of metal guards.  All good, but in today’s photo we have short lengths of wire being used to hang the sting lights.

Is this a problem?  The string lights are from a reputable manufacturer.  Built-in molded plastic hanger eyes are provided.  But, check the manufacturers’ literature- the plastic hanger eye is provided for use with “messenger cable or hooks.”    Messenger cable???  Why bother with that when we can just hang the lamps using some bits of wire?

Look closely – this is not a usual case – the lamp assembly is pulled over and tied off to a metal stud with a spare length of wire pointing into the aisle, ready to catch a worker or hit the bulb. Then there is a small twist of wire being used to lock the clam shell type cage.  Why is wire being used when plastic zip ties and bits of string are readily available in the workplace?

The installation shown above might pass OSHA inspection since the wire is passing through the manufacturer’s establish plastic eye (reference OSHA 1926.405(a)(2)(ii)(F) Temporary lights shall not be suspended by their electric cords unless cords and light are designed for this means of suspension).

My suggestions – stop arguing about OSHA compliance.  Instead, fool proof everyone’s safety by setting up a worksite rule that says “ NO wires” when setting up temporary lighting or extension cords,  that keeps everyone from making a random mistake that could lead to electrical shock.

  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • LinkedIn
  • Ping
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Share/Bookmark

Beware the “Fresh Breeze”

Friday, October 9th, 2009
Roofers several stories up, trying to batten down their materials during high gusts. (Photo: Jan Thomas)

Roofers several stories up, trying to batten down their materials during high gusts. (Photo: Jan Thomas)

The trees outside my office window are being blown by a “fresh breeze,” fall leaves whipping off.  The local weather station reports 18 to 20 mph gusts.  Last night I watched a Weather Channel report on workers in Japan being blown about by typhoon-generated winds of more than 85 mph.  All this reminds me that I’ve been meaning to write a blog on how to determine when windy conditions are safe for workers, cranes, and other outdoor material handling.  I’ve seen plenty of guys trying to carry sheets of plywood during high wind.  And, I really get concerned when the unloaded crane hook is swinging in the breeze.

I’m always being asked, “What’s OSHA’s rule on wind speed?”  That’s easy – there is NO general rule.  In fact, current OSHA General Industry and Construction standards say very little other than a few minor mentions in outdated crane standards.  That will change when OSHA finally adopts the new Subpart CCCranes and Derricks in Construction. (You saw that right – OSHA’s going into double alpha for their subparts.)

For example, proposed §1926.1417(h) states “when a local storm warning has been issued, the competent person shall determine whether it is necessary to implement manufacturer recommendations for securing the equipment.”  Suddenly, we have at least 3 entities that can help us make a decision – the National Weather Service, the on-site competent person, and the crane manufacturer!   The conditions of each crane pick are different and do depend upon on-site decisions.  Several sources, too numerous to list here, indicated that by the time wind gets to 20 – 25 mph it is getting too risky to operate cranes.

And, what about those workers lifting plywood and other materials on the roof?  When should they be concerned?  This should be obvious, but sometimes not to the supervisor tucked away in the office.  Check out the Beaufort Scale for land wind conditions.

  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • LinkedIn
  • Ping
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Share/Bookmark

Researching the “Parapet Rule”

Monday, October 5th, 2009
Great example of guarding the parapet edge when its dimensions don’t add up to the “parapet rule.”  And, note the professional carpentry!  This is a Taylor & Parrish job where the guardrails are always the best. (Photo: Jan Thomas)

Great example of guarding the parapet edge when its dimensions don’t add up to the “parapet rule.” And, note the professional carpentry! This is a Taylor & Parrish job where the guardrails are always the best. (Photo: Jan Thomas)

I think all professionals have a tendency to pass-on answers based upon “rules” they have been told about but have not researched for themselves.  Such is the case with a “flat roof/parapet height rule” I was told to use back in my OSHA compliance days (hint – it’s not in the OSHA standards).

Yet, when I started consulting, I also started to check my advice to clients, being ready to pull out the necessary documents supporting my statements.  It’s so much easier to do this today with a robust internet but still some of the provenances of these “rules” are obscure.  And, not only are they hard to trace but many are not regulatory rules, only guidelines.  For example, if you have a flat roof with a parapet that is at least 30 inches tall and at least 18 inches wide, you may have sufficient protection, if you have limited exposure.  I added the part about limited exposure as I’m not truly comfortable with this “parapet rule.”

I believe this formula started as an architectural guideline.  Fall protection expert Dr. Nigel Ellis has discussed the parapet solution through all 3 editions of his Introduction to Fall Protection book (1988, 1993, 2001).  On May 2, 2003, OSHA published a proposed rule change for Subparts D and I of 29CFR1910.  At proposed Appendix A –  Fall Protection Systems,   you will find the following schematic with formula: 

parapet rule

I emailed Dr. Ellis recently to see if he still used this 30-inch + 18-inch rule – he calls it a flopguard.  He advocates that we all start using a 45-inch minimum high guardrail system – people around the world are getting taller!   Thanks, Dr. Ellis. It is great being able to converse with an expert.

So, to wrap up this blog, I want to say that I really do enjoy researching these fine points for our clients and I’ve got a list of them – almost all of which will make great future blog topics!  If you have an obscure “rule,” let me know and I’ll add it to the list!

  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • LinkedIn
  • Ping
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Share/Bookmark

A “Consensus of Concerned Interests”

Friday, August 28th, 2009
A local skateboard park… wait, this will make sense by the end of this blog. (Photo by Brian Evans, our IT manager and a park patron)

A local skateboard park… wait, this will make sense by the end of this blog. (Photo by Brian Evans, our IT manager and a park patron)

 

I came across this wonderful turn of phrase while doing some recent research in an American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) standard.  It so precisely explains the what, how, and why of our nation’s non-governmental, consensus standardization process.  

Unfortunately, I’ve found that most people in the workplace who make reference to a consensus standard developed by, say, ASME, ASTM, or ASSE (I’m only naming a few) don’t actually understand the distinctions between these organizations’ documents and ANSI (the federation or “mother ship” of concerned interests).  There is further confusion when we try to delineate clear boundaries between an OSHA standard that has been taken in part, adopted in whole, or referenced to a national consensus standard such as ANSI or NFPA.

A little “consumer education” will help.  We all buy consumer products, many of which show “accredited manufacturer’s” stamps (e.g., ASTM for toy safety).  But, does the general public know what those stamps indicate?  Safety professionals will understand what a manufacturer’s tag means when it says “always wear eye protection that meets ANSI Z87.1 requirements.” But, again, do the majority of professionals understand the distinctions between ANSI and one of its accredited Standards Developing Organizations (SDO) such as ASSE?  (Note: The official numbering for the eye protection standard is ANSI/ASSE Z87.1).

This topic of standardization and consensus development could take up a whole college course – maybe even one that I’ll get an opportunity to teach someday.  Such a course is not improbable since ANSI and its SDO’s are promoting “standards education.”    

So, get off that social networking site and spend some time reading the educational information on the consensus standard websites.  It’s actually all very interesting!  I suggest starting with http://www.ansi.org/about_ansi/introduction/history.aspx?menuid=1.   There is a simpler version at http://www.ansi.org/consumer_affairs/history_standards.aspx?menuid=5.  Then check out the new ASTM F2334 – 09 for Above Ground Public Use Skate Park Facilities… and you will view the above photograph with deeper appreciation.  A standard such as this guides the construction, operation and safety equipment required at a public use skate park and is just one example of a national consensus standard for all “concerned interests.”

  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • LinkedIn
  • Ping
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Share/Bookmark

Moving from Compliance to Excellence

Friday, August 14th, 2009

Circle Safety ScreenshotHere is a screenshot of our website logo and our company slogan.  Looking back on our 14 years of safety and health consulting, I can actually see how our own professional development, attitudes, practice, and recommendations to clients have moved across an arc – from a focus upon regulatory compliance to excellence as the motivation.

There are so many stories and examples of our successful work with clients.  See our client list for examples of those who have moved from worrying about OSHA compliance and are now  meeting their business goals while incorporating excellence in safety and health. 

But, our stories of failures are also illustrative.  Every once in a while we meet with company or agency managers who “want safety” and a proposal from us to “do some work.”   At Circle Safety, we try to accommodate all sizes of organizations, work cultures, management styles, and budgets.  We want to help but negotiations sometimes fail when management just isn’t ready to dedicate the time and resources or the leadership!  One of the early clues that we may not be able to help is reflected in the language being used – examples of which I just pointed out.

We, too, are a business; we seek new clients and we will usually work with anyone who needs help. Still, what we enjoy most is working with those who already envision moving toward Excellence.

  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • LinkedIn
  • Ping
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Share/Bookmark

Please Note: Analysis and opinions expressed are specific to the current discussion only. Different facts, changes in standards and codes, or other circumstances may lead to different results.