Masonry Magazine March 1973 Page. 19
OSHA infome
Current Information
Relating To The Occupational
Safety and Health Act
by Lawrence P. Sands
(Fred S. James & Co.,
MCAA Insurance
Consultants)
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION MAKES
LOANS AVAILABLE TO COMPLY WITH JOB
SAFETY STANDARDS
The Small Business Administration has approved 18 loans for small businesses attempting to comply with the Occupational Safety & Health Act as provided in section 28 of the Act. One such recipient was a Kansas City mason contractor who received a direct loan of $43,000; a construction company in Amarillo, Texas received another direct loan for $200,000.
1974 OSHA BUDGET SHOWS SMALL INCREASE
The budget proposal projects spending $2.9 million on OSHA safety and health standards development; $24.9 million for enforcement; $3.4 million for training, education and information; $30 million for state programs; $4.8 million for safety and health statistics, and $3.5 million for executive direction and administration.
Broader enforcement of job safety and health standards is planned for fiscal 1974 with the addition of some 200 new compliance officers. This would bring the total number of inspectors to approximately 750 by June 30, 1974. This is the only staff increase planned for all of OSHA in the fiscal year.
An estimated 55,000 compliance inspections will be conducted during all of fiscal 1973, increasing to 80,000 by June 30, 1974. OSHA projects that some 22 state plans will be approved by the end of fiscal 1973 and will be in full operation by the end of fiscal 1974. Sufficient monies are included in the budget to provide 50-50 funding for state plans, OSHA officials said.
CITATIONS RECEIVED BY MASON
CONTRACTORS
A Colorado Springs mason contractor was cited for alleged violation of 1926.541. The citation alleged failure to provide cross or diagonal bracing to secure separate vertical sections of scaffold to each other; failure to provide adequate mud sills for bases of legs on scaffold sections on muddy soil; failure to secure three scaffold sections to the wall of the building; failure to provide standard guardrails on the outside and ends of scaffolds, and failure to overlap planks and plywood platforms a minimum of 12 inches in at least six instances.
The total proposed penalty for the alleged violations was $700. Another mason contractor from Denver was cited at one of his locations for alleged serious violation of 1926.552. The citation alleged that a material hoist used at the acoustic vibration facility had no operating rules posted, including a signal system and "no riders allowed" sign; no entrance of the hoistway was protected with gates or hinge bars that would guard the full width of the landing entrance; no overhead protective covering was provided on top of the material hoist cage or platform; no enclosure was provided for the platform for the full height between the floor floor and the overhead covering: a six-foot-high enclosure was not provided on the unused sides of the hoist tower at ground level, and no safety belt or railings were provided for an employee using the hoist platform as a workplace more than 40 feet above ground level.
The less serious violations cited were for 1926.250. The citation alleged that aisles and walkways were not maintained free from material and debris on two levels, and guardrails and toeboards were not provided on the open sides of the scaffold platform that was more than 10 feet high. The total penalty proposed for the alleged violations was $775.
A Berkeley (Calif.) mason contractor was cited for alleged serious violation of 1926.28. The citation alleged failure to require the wearing of appropriate personal protective equipment where an employee was allowed to work at the edge of a roof area six stories high while accepting materials being hoisted from ground level by rope and pulley. The company was also cited for alleged non-serious violation for 1926.28 for failure to provide safety goggles for an employee operating a Target masonry saw; failure to provide a material hoist of adequate construction, and failure to post the OSHA poster. The total proposed penalty for the alleged violations was $725.
RULING ON SCAFFOLDING STANDARD
A Kansas City mason contractor, after being informed of the various procedures that could be used concerning the type of guardrail to protect his employees, insisted that he wanted a variance; but according to the acting judge, he violated a scaffolding safety standard.
The employer had been charged with having employees working on a scaffold more than six feet high without guardrails provided on all open sides. A compliance officer informed the employer how he could comply with the law and still continue his particular bricklaying operation. The employer was told of sliding guardrails, the drop-type guardrail, or any procedure he wanted to use that would close up temporary loading openings in the guardrails created for the purpose of loading of brick and material.
The contractor was informed that this was the Labor Department's position concerning guardrails; it could have removable guardrails at the opening where material was loaded so long as they were taken down just before loading and put up immediately after the loading was completed. If the contractor would accept the information given him by the compliance officer as to how he could load material and replace the metal guardrails after loading, he would have no trouble in his operations and still comply with the law according to the presiding judge.
However, the record established that the contractor apparently wanted a variance granted so that he could continue operating in a fashion that did not conform to the present standards. The judge determined that the standard had been violated, the request for variance was denied, and a penalty levied.
A proposal that the penalty be increased was rejected for several reasons. There was a considerable amount of misunderstanding of the Occupational Safety & Health Act on the part of the contractor, in the judge's opinion, and it was felt that the employer had committed an honest error as to how to unload. It was felt that this decision would help clear up the misunderstanding. If the employer continues to feel that the law and regulations are wrong, there are other avenues in which to seek relief. Congress delegated the Secretary of Labor the duty of establishing and promulgating occupational safety and health standards. The contractor should bring his proposed changes before the secretary in the form of a request for a "variance."