Masonry Magazine January 1973 Page. 29
OSHA info
Current Information
Relating To The Occupational
Safety and Health Act
by Lawrence P. Sands
(Fred S. James & Co.,
MCAA Insurance
Consultants)
MASON CONTRACTORS CITED FOR
OSHA VIOLATIONS
Two mason contractors were cited for OSHA violations. The citations 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 guard rails 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.
NEW ISSUE OF STANDARDS RELEASED
A revised set of Construction Standards were published December 16, 1972. Up-dated copies can be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. for $.20 per copy.
OSHA AMENDS CONSTRUCTION
SCAFFOLD STANDARDS
The Department of Labor amended changes for pump jack scaffolds to provide nationwide uniformity in their use. The new rule limits them to light support and work load conditions. Lean-to and shore scaffolds continue to be prohibited. The changes raise the height at which work platform guardrails are required for scaffolds from six feet above the surface to 10 feet for all types other then catch platforms. These catch platforms usually placed parallel to roof eaves save employees from accidental slips. The guard-rail height requirement is increased from 10 to 16 feet above the surface.
PROGRESS IN STATE PLANS
Approximately 20 states have submitted their plans for occupational safety and health to the Department of Labor for approval. Ten or 12 additional state plans were expected to have been submitted by the end of 1972. South Carolina and Montana state plans have been approved by OSHA and, it is estimated, all of these plans should be approved or rejected by the end of 1973. OSHA believes, however, that there is little chance all 50 states will participate.
Many companies engaged in multi-state operations are concerned with the eventual takeover by the states because of the probability of wide variations in state standards. OSHA indicated, however, that most state plans submitted to date resemble the federal program and do not vary considerably from the federal program. It was also announced that state plans may develop a program of on-site consultation provided it does not detract from the effectiveness of the state's enforcement program.
REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT
Robert D. Moran, chairman of the Occupational Safety masonry January, 1973 All MCAA members having questions concerning OSHA or desiring information relative to the Act, should write MCAA, OSHA Information, 208 S. LaSalle St., Chicago 60604, and the authors, Sands and Wilson, will be more than pleased to assist you.
and Health Review Commission, announced that the employer is not necessarily in violation of OSHA whenever one of his employees fails to comply with a standard. A violation of the Act can only be established where the employer has done something he should not have done or failed to do something he should have done.
The principal difference between review by the three-member commission of one of OSHA's judge's decisions and the circuit court's review of a district court's decision, is that the circuit court sees only those decisions appealed to it by one of the parties to the district court action. The commission does not hear imminent danger cases, which go straight to the courts.
Moran also pointed out that there are no automatic fines under the law and that lawyers are not required at commission hearings. Decisions in more than 90% of the cases which come to the commission are not reviewed by the commission itself. Each of the three members read all the decisions, but in only about 10% of the cases does any member conclude that there is reason for changing the judge's decision.
PROGRESS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
CHANGES ISSUED
OSHA published a timetable in March for proposed standards changes for the rest of the calendar year. Under that schedule, changes have been promulgated involving the following standards:
* Roll-over protective structures for vehicles used in the construction industry.
* Traffic control devices and helmets for electrical workers in construction.
* Asbestos.
* Electrical welding, cutting, and brazing.
* Powered platforms and vehicle-mounted platforms.
* Revocation of toilet partition height requirements.
The following proposed changes have been published:
* Power transmission and distribution lines.
* Resolution of conflict between general industry and construction standards on catch platforms and scaffold height and revocation of the ban on pumpjack scaffolds.
* Revocation of requirement for women's retiring rooms.
* Modification of sanitation standards including requirements on ice in drinking water and on the need for split toilet seats.
* Revision of fire protection requirements.
* Modifications of portable electric tool requirements to permit use of double insulated tool and switch controls.
* Revocation of prohibition on industrial truck steering knobs and selected materials handling and storage requirements.
(Continued on page 42)