Moderator: Speaker:CRAIG GALECKA, P.E., C.S.P. THOMAS E. KRAMER, P.E., C.S.P. [email protected] [email protected]
OSHA PROPOSED SUBPART D & I: WALKING-WORKING SURFACES AND PPE
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US
To learn more about fall protection from LJB Inc.
Blog> http://www.ljbfallprotectionblog.com
Podcasts – 60 Seconds for Safety> http://www.ljbinc.com/safetybydesign
YouTube video> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk7F8UJxnLU
INTRODUCTION
LJB Inc.> Three divisions
> Safety division focused on fall protection
• Program management
• Risk assessments
• Abatement design
• Training
INTRODUCTION
Thom Kramer, P.E., C.S.P.> Principal in LJB Safety division
> 15+ years experience in fall protection industry
> ANSI Z359 Senior Executive Committee
• Chairman of ANSI Z359.6
• Chairman of ANSI Z359.17
> American Society of Safety Engineers
• 2011 PDC Program Subcommittee Chair
> International Society for Fall Protection, President
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Summarize the content of the proposed regulation.
2. Identify key issues with proposed regulation.
3. State actions to assist your organization in implementation.
CALL TO ACTION
1. Read Proposed Regulatory Text (pages 29131 to 29153)
2. Submit comments that either address the issues that OSHA
has identified or affects your industry.
3. Implement ANSI Z359.2Fall hazard survey report
Procedures
Training requirements
4. Work to eliminate all fall hazards
AGENDA
Background on regulation
OSHA’s reasons for changes and claims
Organization of the proposed rule FR notice
Summary of key issues
Next steps: take-aways
BACKGROUND
1971 – 29CFR 1910 Subpart D was adopted> Originally based on pre-1971 ANSI standards
> Little change since adoption
> Not consistent with standards developed for shipyards and
construction
1973 – OSHA proposed revision
1976 – OSHA withdrew proposed revision
BACKGROUND-cont.
1984 – OSHA issues Std 1-1.13
1990 – OSHA proposed another revision> Reorganize, update and clarify the subpart
> Add personal fall protection requirements to subpart I
2003 – Rulemaking record reopened
2005 – Decide to redraft entire rule> Comments that 1990 rule was outdated
> Did not give adequate consideration to newer technology
May 24, 2010 – OSHA issues proposed subparts D & I
AGENDA
Background on regulation
OSHA’s reasons for changes and claims
Organization of the proposed rule FR notice
Summary of key issues
Next steps: take-aways
OSHA’S GOALS
OSHA proposes subpart D to accomplish1. Reflect current industry practices and national consensus
standards
2. Harmonize provisions, when possible, with other OSHA
provisions (e.g., 1926 and 1915)
3. Use performance-oriented language when possible
STATISTICS
Slips, Trips and Falls – 15% of all accidental deaths
2nd to motor vehicles in causing accidental deaths
BLS Data for 1992 to 2004 for General Industry> Average 300 fatal falls annually
• 213 from higher level
> 299,404 lost work day injuries
• 26% from a higher level
2007 data – 357 fall fatalities with 267 from height
WHY UPDATE THE REGULATION?
Prevent 20 workplace fatalities per year
Prevent over 3,700 injuries per year
WHY UPDATE THE REGULATION?
Prevent 20 workplace fatalities per year
Prevent over 3,700 injuries per year
From Fatal Falls summary: total (from height) – page 28866> 1992-2004 (avg per year): 300 (213)
> 2005: 320 (257)
> 2006: 343 (285)
> 2007: 357 (267)
WHY UPDATE THE REGULATION?
Reduce fall injuries and fatalities by > Updating to include new technology (PFAS)
> Updating to include new industry standards
Reorganizes rule in clearer manner
Provides greater compliance flexibility
Written in plain language
Increases consistency with construction and maritime
regulations
WHY UPDATE THE REGULATION?
Reduce fall injuries and fatalities by > Updating to include new technology (PFAS)
> Updating to include new industry standards
Reorganizes rule in clearer manner
Provides greater compliance flexibility
Written in plain language
Increases consistency with construction and maritime
regulations
TOTAL FALL FATALITIES
Source: BLS Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries
573 607652623 634
659 698638
604
738
664
738 733680
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Fatalities
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007Year
TOTAL FALL FATALITIES
Source: BLS Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries
573 607652 623 634
659 698638
604
738
664
738 733
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Fatalities
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007Year
+28%
SPECIFIC ISSUES PER OSHA
1. Fall protection on rolling stock and motor vehicles
2. Fall protection for employees standing or climbing on stacked
materials (e.g., steel and precast concrete products)
3. Qualified climber
4. Building anchorages for rope descent systems
5. Technological advances in fall protection and fall arrest
AGENDA
Background on regulation
OSHA’s reasons for changes and claims
Organization of the proposed rule FR notice
Summary of key issues
Next steps: take-aways
ORGANIZATION OF FR NOTICE
I. Background
II. Analysis of Risk
III. Issues
IV. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Rule
V. Preliminary Economic and Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Screening Analysis
VI. Applicability of Existing National Consensus Standards
ORGANIZATION OF FR NOTICE-cont.
VII. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
VIII. Federalism
IX. State Plan States
X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
XI. Public Participation
XII. Authority and Signature
XIII. Proposed Regulatory Text
RECOMMENDED READING
1. Proposed Regulatory Text: pages 29131 to 29153
2. Issues: pages 28867 to 28870
3. Summary & Explanation … Proposed Rule: pages 28870 to 28912
4. Background: pages 28863 to 28865
5. Applicability of … Consensus Standards: page 29128
6. Analysis of Risk: pages 28865 to 28867
SUBPART D - CONTENT
29 CFR 1910.XX
.21 – Scope, application and definitions
.22 – General requirements
.23 – Ladders
.24 – Step bolts and manhole steps
.25 – Stairways
SUBPART D – CONTENT- cont.
29 CFR 1910.XX
.26 – Dockboards
.27 – Scaffolds
.28 – Duty to have fall protection
.29 – Fall protection systems criteria and practices
.30 – Training requirements
** Refer to redesignation table on page 28870
SUBPART I - CONTENT
29 CFR 1910.XXX
.132 – General requirements
.140 – Fall protection systems
Appendix C – Personal Fall Protection Systems Non-
Mandatory Guidelines
Appendix D – Test Methods and Procedures for Personal Fall
Protection Systems Non-Mandatory Guidelines
WHAT IS CONSIDERED A HAZARD?
§ 1910.28 Duty to have fall protection
§ 1910.29 Fall protection systems criteria and practices
Hazard surveys required under 1910.132 and the categories
of falls listed under subpart D
HAZARD LOCATIONS
§ 1910.28 Duty to have fall protection> (b) Protection from fall hazards
1. Unprotected sides and edges
2. Hoist areas
3. Holes
4. Dockboards (bridge plates)
5. Runways and similar walkways
6. Dangerous equipment
HAZARD LOCATIONS
§ 1910.28 Duty to have fall protection (cont.)7. Wall openings
8. Repair, service, and assembly pits (pits) less than 10 feet in
depth
9. Fixed ladders
10.Outdoor advertising (billboards)
11.Stairways
12.Scaffolds (including rope descent systems)
13.Walking-working surfaces not otherwise addressed
14.Protection for floor holes
HAZARD LOCATIONS
§ 1910.29 Fall protection systems criteria and practices> (b) Guardrail systems
> (c) Safety net systems
> (d) Designated areas
> (e) Covers
> (f) Handrail and stair rail systems
HAZARD LOCATIONS
§ 1910.29 Fall protection systems criteria and practices (cont.)> (g) Cages, wells, and platforms used with fixed ladders
> (h) Qualified Climbers
> (i) Ladder safety systems
> (j) Personal fall protection systems
> (k) Protection from falling objects
AGENDA
Background on regulation
OSHA’s reasons for changes and claims
Organization of the proposed rule FR notice
Summary of key issues> Items of interest – Top 10
> Grandfather clause
> Notable omissions
> Exemptions
Next steps: take-aways
ITEMS OF INTEREST – TOP 10
10. ANSI vs. OSHA
ITEMS OF INTEREST – TOP 10
10. ANSI vs. OSHA
9. OSHA is making 1910 consistent with 1926 and 1915> The good: easy for scaffolding
> The bad: historical data from the BLS
ITEMS OF INTEREST – TOP 10
10. ANSI vs. OSHA
9. OSHA is making 1910 consistent with 1926 and 1918
8. Designating anchorages
ITEMS OF INTEREST – TOP 10
10. ANSI vs. OSHA
9. OSHA is making 1910 consistent with 1926 and 1918
8. Designating anchorages
7. Number of fatalities this addresses
WHY UPDATE THE REGULATION?
Prevent 20 workplace fatalities per year
Prevent over 3,700 injuries per year
From Fatal Falls summary: total (from height) – page 28866> 1992-2004 (avg per year): 300 (213)
> 2005: 320 (257)
> 2006: 343 (285)
> 2007: 357 (267)
ITEMS OF INTEREST – TOP 10
10. ANSI vs. OSHA
9. OSHA is making 1910 consistent with 1926 and 1918
8. Designating anchorages
7. Number of fatalities this addresses
6. Lack of reference to STD1-1.13
STD 1-1.13
Use fixed platforms when:> Work access is frequent, regular and predictable
• Frequency < once every two weeks
• Duration of access > four hours total in any sequential four-
week period
OSHA is using the term ‘‘walking-working surfaces’’ instead of
the existing term ‘‘floor’’ to indicate clearly that subpart D
addresses all surfaces where employees perform work.
WALKING-WORKING SURFACES AND ROOFS
Standard does not specify a distance from a roof edge at which
fall protection is not required
Allows work to be done without guardrails> Slaughtering facilities
> Loading racks
> Loading docks
> Teeming tables
ITEMS OF INTEREST – TOP 10
5. Allows use of PFAS in situations where fall hazard is 4 feet
ITEMS OF INTEREST – TOP 10
5. Allows use of PFAS in situations where fall hazard is 4 feet
4. Unprotected edge issue and use of less protective in short term
situations> This proposed standard does not specify a distance from the
edge that is considered safe, i.e., a distance at which fall
protection is not required. Instead, it allows the employer to
designate an area in which employees can work without fall
protection.
> Vehicle maintenance pits
> Loading racks and other areas
ITEMS OF INTEREST – TOP 10
5. Allows use of PFAS in situations where fall hazard is 4 feet
4. Unprotected edge issue and use of less protective in short term
situations
3. Inconsistency for load rating of nets vs. fall arrest anchors
SAFETY NETS V. ANCHORAGES
Two types of fall arrest systems: collective v. personal
Both support an impact force from a falling object
Both prevent the worker from striking the level below
Components for both types have a 5,000-pound capacity
SAFETY NETS V. ANCHORS
Test weight used:> Nets: 400 pounds of sand
> Anchorages: 282 pound (formerly 220 pound) rigid weight
Redundancy> Nets: significant redundancy relative to structure, equipment and
attachments
> Anchorages: single line and attachment location = no redundancy
Determining strength and overall suitability > Nets: subjected to a drop test or certified by the employer (or CP)
> Anchorages: Certified by a qualified person or able to support 5,000
pounds
SAFETY NETS V. ANCHORAGES
Safety nets:> 400 pound weight
> Redundancy in components, connections and structure
> Require drop test or analysis
Fall arrest system:> 282 pound weight
> Little to no redundancy
> Eyeball or analysis
ITEMS OF INTEREST – TOP 10
5. Allows use of PFAS in situations where fall hazard is 4 feet
4. Unprotected edge issue and use of less protective in short term
situations
3. Inconsistency for load rating of nets vs. fall arrest anchors
2. Cost considerations
COST CONSIDERATIONS
Two factors for the cost of compliance1. Cost associated with codifying the fall protection requirements
where there was not clarity before
2. Cost associated with bringing facilities into compliance where the
previous requirements applied but were not put in place by the
employer.
Costs in proposed document only includes #1, NOT #2.
ITEMS OF INTEREST – TOP 10
5. Allows use of PFAS in situations where fall hazard is 4 feet
4. Unprotected edge issue and use of less protective in short term
situations
3. Inconsistency for load rating of nets vs. fall arrest anchors
2. Cost considerations
1. Grandfather clause
GRANDFATHER CLAUSE
Grandfather clause for the following sections:
§ 1910.23(d)(2) – Fixed ladder design loads
§ 1910.24(a)(1) – step bolts corrosion
§ 1910.24(a)(7) – step bolt design load
§ 1910.24(b)(2) – manhole step requirements
§ 1910.25(a)(6) – door openings
§ 1910.26(b) – dock boards, equipment running of edge
§ 1910.29(f)(1)(ii) – height of stair rail systems > 36 inches
GUARDRAIL HEIGHT
36-inch grandfather provision is not included in this proposal> Nor does OSHA consider it to be equally safe to the "42 inches
nominal“
> Any previous OSHA letters of interpretation are hereby
superseded.”
Proposed rule> requires … 42 inches plus or minus 3 inches
> Parapets can be as low as 30 inches provided the sum of the
depth and height is at least 48 inches
See pages 28893 to 28895 for more on this issue
NOTABLE OMISSIONS
Reference to STD 1-1.13
Competent person authority
COMPETENT PERSON
Identifies existing, foreseeable
and predictable hazards
Has the authority to take
prompt corrective measures to
eliminate such hazards
NOTABLE OMISSIONS
Reference to STD 1-1.13
Competent person authority
Hierarchy of control observance
HIERARCHY OF CONTROL
Employers can choose from several options
Can consider exposure time, availability of attachment points,
feasibility and cost constraints
Removes hierarchy and establishes options that provide
“equivalent protections”
OSHA has limited the employer’s choices to those that it
believes will provide an equal level of safety
Guardrail height “equally safe” discussion
HIERARCHY OF CONTROL
FALL PROTECTION SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
“OSHA’s intent is that fall protection systems be installed,
permanently where possible, so that the systems are in place
and available for use whenever there is a potential exposure to
fall hazards”
OSHA envisions employers will take a proactive approach to
managing fall hazards
NOTABLE OMISSIONS
Reference to STD 1-1.13
Competent person authority
Hierarchy of control observance
Inspection exemption similar to 1926
NOTABLE OMISSIONS
Reference to STD 1-1.13
Competent person authority
Hierarchy of control observance
Inspection exemption similar to 1926
Load rating
NOTABLE OMISSIONS
Snap hook gate strength> Recent letter of interpretation from October 13, 2009
NOTABLE OMISSIONS
Snap hook gate strength> Recent letter of interpretation from October 13, 2009
Equipment for free fall > 6’
NOTABLE OMISSIONS
Snap hook gate strength> Recent letter of interpretation from October 13, 2009
Equipment for free fall > 6’
Heavy weight worker
NOTABLE OMISSIONS
Snap hook gate strength> Recent letter of interpretation from October 13, 2009
Equipment for free fall > 6’
Heavy weight worker
Fall back on ladder safety devices is not addressed
SRL or VLL over an edge
NOTABLE OMISSIONS
Snap hook gate strength> Recent letter of interpretation from October 13, 2009
Equipment for free fall > 6’
Heavy weight worker
Fall back on ladder safety devices is not addressed
SRL or VLL over an edge
More on rescue> Safety and Health Information Bulletin from 2004.
EXEMPTIONS
Standard stairs> Does not cover:
• Floating roof tanks
• Scaffolds
• Designed into a machine
• Self propelled motorized mobile equipment
Load racks
Dockboards if used exclusively with motorized equipment
Ladders used in firefighting or rescue operations
EXEMPTIONS
Repair, service, and assembly pits less than 10 feet in depth.> Access within 6’ of edge limited to trained authorized employees
> Floor marked to designate unprotected area
> Cautions signs posted to warn
> If 10’ or more, conventional fall protection must be used
AGENDA
Background on regulation
OSHA’s reasons for changes and claims
Organization of the proposed rule FR notice
Summary of key issues
Next steps: take-aways
INPUT REQUESTS
Fall protection on rolling stock and motor vehicles
Fall protection for standing on stacked materials
Qualified climber
Building anchorages for rope descent systems
Technological advances in fall protection and fall arrest
SUBMITTING COMMENTS
Due August 23, 2010
Submit electronically online, fax or regular mail
Include Docket No. OSHA-2007-0072
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Summarize the content of the proposed regulation.
2. Identify key issues with proposed regulation.
3. State actions to assist your organization in implementation.
CALL TO ACTION
1. Read Proposed Regulatory Text (pages 29131 to 29153)
2. Submit comments that either address the issues that OSHA
has identified or affects your industry.
3. Implement ANSI Z359.2Fall hazard survey report
Procedures
Training requirements
4. Work to eliminate all fall hazards
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME
To learn more about fall protection from LJB Inc.
Follow-up webinar: Fall hazard risk assessments> October 12 and 14, 2010
Blog> http://www.ljbfallprotectionblog.com
Podcasts – 60 Seconds for Safety> http://www.ljbinc.com/safetybydesign
YouTube video> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk7F8UJxnLU
Moderator: Speaker:CRAIG GALECKA, P.E., C.S.P. THOMAS E. KRAMER, P.E., C.S.P. [email protected] [email protected]
OSHA PROPOSED SUBPART D & I: WALKING-WORKING SURFACES AND PPE