Masonry Magazine July 2002 Page. 25
But were they right? Would fall arrest gear have saved this mason's life? The argument could be made that no harness or other system would have prevented the accident-the poor condition of the scaffold wouldn't have improved by a safety harness on the workers. But would it have given the mason a better chance to survive that accident?
OSHA speaks
AS FAR BACK AS NOVEMBER 25, 1986, OSHA proposed to revise the fall protection standard. The rulemaking record, developed over a nine-year period, resulted in a more performance-oriented rule, issued on August 9, 1994 and published in volume 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1926, subpart M, and in volume 59 of the Federal Register. You can view the rule on OSHA's Website at www.osha.gov.
In general, the rule requires that an employee exposed to a fall hazard of six feet or more must be protected by equipment that prevents or arrests the fall. Subsequently, some employers claimed that parts of the rule were not appropriate for their operations.
The residential, pre-cast concrete, and post-frame construction industries stated that different fall protection provisions are needed for their activities. Reinforcing steel (rebar construction) employers requested that workers who climb rebar walls and assemblies be permitted to climb without fall protection and only be required to tie off upon reaching their work location.
Also, some people familiar with safety harnesses, restraint systems and positioning devices raised concerns regarding the standard's performance criteria for fall protection systems.
In response to issues about the rule raised by the residential construction industry, on December 8, 1995, OSHA issued interim fall protection procedures for residential construction employers-OSHA Instruction STD 3.1-that differed from those in the 1994 ruling. On June 18, 1999, OSHA issued a plain language rewrite entitled STD 3.1A and stated that it would undertake further rulemaking to address these fall protection issues.
OSHA emphasized that the extensive rulemaking process completed in 1994 established that the fall protection requirements in the rule are reasonably necessary and appropriate to protect employees from the significant risks of fall hazards. Providing such protection was demonstrated to be both technologically and economically feasible.
However, STD 3-0.1A permits employers to use specified work practices instead of conventional fall protection systems or devices that physically prevent a worker from falling or arrest a worker's fall. These can be used for foundation work, some installation work on roofs and in attics, and some residential roofing work. Masonry work has even more rules, as we'll see.
Section 1926.501(b) (13) contains the fall protection requirements for residential construction. It states that each employee engaged in residential construction activities more than 6 feet (1.8m) above lower levels shall be protected by guardrail systems, safety net system, or personal fall arrest system unless another provision in paragraph (b) of the section provides for an alternative fall protection measure.
Exception: When the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems, the employer shall develop and implement a fall protection plan that meets the requirements of paragraph (k) of Sec. 1926.502.
Sounds like a lot of government gobbledygook, right? Like doing your taxes, all the subsections, cross references, and parenthetical numbers blur the issue. But since the issue is worker safety, you must take time to translate these rules into best practices.
When publishing this standard, OSHA acknowledged that some employers in the construction industry might have difficulty providing conventional fall protection for certain operations. The rule states that conventional fall protection in construction is presumed to be feasible.
However, where the contractor can show that conventional fall protection is infeasible at a particular worksite, the contractor may implement a written "alternative fall protection plan." The plan must be in writing, designed for the particular work site, and specify alternative measures that are as protective as possible.
But masons are special!
LET'S TAKE A LOOK at the OSHA regulations for masonry scaffolding and put this in perspective.
"Masons' adjustable supported scaffold" is the term that OSHA uses so employers who used "self-contained adjustable scaffolds" in masonry operations would have a clear reference point in the revised Subpart L.
"Masons' multi-point adjustable suspension scaffold" was another term that was adopted. The term means a two-point or multi-point adjustable suspension scaffold designed and used for masonry operations.
One group suggested OSHA adopt the definition for this term from ANSI A10.8-1977, which contains the language "continuous platform." However, OSHA intended to not limit this type of scaffold to a single "continuous platform." All types of multi-point suspension scaffolds covered by Subpart L may consist of more than one platform-multi-point scaffolds are not limited by the number of suspension wires, platforms, or the location or attachment of the suspension wires to the platform or platforms.
Additionally the definition suggested did not include the words "masonry operations." OSHA included the words "masonry operations" in this definition so it applies specifically to such scaffolds used in the masonry trade.