11/25/2023 0 Comments Building a scaffold tower![]() Unfortunately, this will not be the case most of the time. In this example, it is feasible and mandatory to provide fall protection. ![]() Using the proper attachment equipment, he secures his lanyard to the I-beam. We will assume that an erector working 50 feet above ground in a stationary position has an I-beam or similar structural member just above his head to which to tie off. Thus, the anchorage point to which we tie must meet the requirements listed above. (ii) under the supervision of a qualified person." (i) as part of a complete personal fall arrest system which maintains a safety factor of at least two and "Anchorages used for attachment of personal fall arrest equipment shall be independent of any anchorage being used to support or suspend platforms and capable of supporting at least 5,000 pounds (22.2 kg) per employee attached, or shall be designed, installed and used as follows: ![]() There are a couple of regulations in Subpart M, specifically in 1926.502(d), which go to the heart of this issue. Subpart M covers the performance criteria, installation and use of personal fall arrest systems. This leads us across regulations from Subpart L (i.e., the scaffold subpart) to Subpart M (i.e., the fall protection subpart). Why can't we simply tell our erectors to wear a personal fall arrest system, tie off 100 percent of the time, and say that we've solved the problem? The answer is that there is more involved in having a proper personal fall arrest system in place than simply putting on a harness and tying off to something. Consequently, 1926.451(g)(2) is still an enforceable regulation if a compliance officer chooses to pursue it, even though Non-Mandatory Appendix B has not been developed. ![]() This has had the effect that most compliance officers are not actively writing citations based on 1926.451(g)(2) until more clarification is in effect. In the meantime, OSHA sent a directive to its field offices that compliance officers must send any intended citations based on 1926.451(g)(2) to the Washington, D.C., office for review before the citation can be issued. We will discuss why it is so complicated later in this article. Unfortunately, the issue is so complicated that OSHA has been unable to develop Non-Mandatory Appendix B. This regulation makes it clear that fall protection should be provided if it is feasible and does not create a greater hazard.īut when is fall protection feasible? To answer that question, OSHA set aside Non-Mandatory Appendix B, titled "Criteria for Determining the Feasibility of Providing Safe Access and Fall Protection for Scaffold Erectors and Dismantlers." OSHA intended for this appendix to be published within a few months of the effective date of the regulation in 1996. Employers are required to provide fall protection for employees erecting or dismantling supported scaffolds where the installation and use of such protection is feasible and does not create a greater hazard." 2, 1997, the employer shall have a competent person determine the feasibility and safety of providing fall protection for employees erecting or dismantling supported scaffolds. In the OSHA 1926 scaffold standard, two regulations relate to fall protection for erectors: 1926.451(g)(2) and Non-Mandatory Appendix B. However, this article will not give a one-size-fits-all solution to the issue of fall protection for scaffold erectors, because such a solution does not exist.įirst, let's look at applicable OSHA regulations. This article focuses on OSHA regulations, points to consider about using the scaffold as an anchorage point, and practical aspects of tying off to various types of scaffolds. These two true incidents introduce the complexity of the problem of providing fall protection for scaffold erectors. His life was probably saved by the personal fall arrest system he used while erecting scaffolding. While he was obviously shaken, he was not injured. He climbed onto the scaffold platform two levels down. The young man fell the 6 feet that the lanyard allowed, plus the distance of elongation and deceleration of the shock absorption system, and his fall was arrested. This time, the anchorage point did not fail. He also wore a personal fall arrest system tied off to the scaffold. That same year, another young man was erecting a tall scaffold at another petrochemical plant a few miles away. Instead of falling 6 feet and having a shock absorbing lanyard engage, he fell almost 40 feet to his death. The scaffold anchorage point to which he was tied off failed. He was tied off to a component of the scaffold he was dismantling. As required by his company, he wore a personal fall arrest system (i.e., a harness and lanyard). A few years ago, a young man was dismantling a scaffold in a petrochemical plant in Houston.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |