Overview of Proposed Changes to OSHA 1910 General Industry Regulations

Moderator: Speaker:CRAIG GALECKA, P.E., C.S.P. THOMAS E. KRAMER, P.E., C.S.P. CGalecka@LJBinc.com TKramer@LJBinc.com

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2005 – Decide to redraft entire rule＞ Comments that 1990 rule was outdated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. CGalecka@LJBinc.com TKramer@LJBinc.com

OSHA PROPOSED SUBPART D & I: WALKING-WORKING SURFACES AND PPE