A TECHNICAL PUBLICATION OF ASSE’S CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE SPECIALTY
Blueprints
www.asse.org
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF SAFETY ENGINEERS
OSHA’S Ability to Cite General Contractors
for Subcontractors’ Construction Violations
Now Seriously in Doubt
By Stephen C. Yohay and Elizabeth M. Walsh
SHA’s authority to issue citations
to general contractors for sub
contractors’ violations under
OSHA’s “Multi-Employer Citation Policy”
has been called into serious question by the
decision of a divided Occupational Safety
and Health Review Commission (OSHRC)
in Secretary of Labor v. Summit Contractors Inc. (OSHRC, No. 03-1622, 4/27/07.)
O
In This Issue
䊳 Reactions to OSHRC’s Decision
on Multi-Employer Worksites . . . . 3
䊳 A10.33-1998 Standard . . . . . . . . . . 5
䊳 Update: ANSI/ASSE A10.40-2007. . 5
䊳
Designing for
Construction Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
䊳 Employee Safety Recognition . . . 11
䊳 OSHA 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2007 • Vol. 7, No. 1
The Multi-Employer
Citation Policy
OSHA’s current Multi-Employer Citation
Policy is described in OSHA’s Field
Inspection Reference Manual (CPL 2.103)
(www.osha.gov/Firm_osha_data/100004
.html), which provides that although
employers may not have employees of
their own exposed to a safety hazard, they
still may be cited for a safety or health violation if such employers create the hazard,
if they control the work site, or if they have
the authority to correct the hazard to which
another’s employee is exposed.
The citation in question arose from
certain scaffolding violations committed
by a masonry subcontractor on a construction site in Little Rock, Arkansas. In
addition to citing the subcontractor for
the violations, however, OSHA also cited
Summit, the project’s general contractor,
on the basis that, as general contractor,
Summit was the “controlling employer.”
No Summit employees were exposed to
the hazard created by the violations.
The Summit Decision
In vacating the citation issued to general
contractor Summit, OSHRC Chair W.
Scott Railton and Commissioner Horace
A. Thompson III agreed in separate opin-
ions that OSHA’s Multi-Employer
Citation Policy is invalid in the construction context when applied against a “controlling employer” who neither creates
nor has employees exposed to the cited
safety hazard.
The two majority commissioners
premised their decision on 29 CFR
1910.12(a), a regulation promulgated by
OSHA in 1971. Under the plain terms
of Section 1910.12(a), an employer
engaged in what is defined as “construction work” may be cited only for a violation of construction standards that exposes
“his employees” to the prohibited hazard.
Section 1910.12(a) states among other
requirements that “[e]ach employer shall
protect the employment and places of
employment of each of his employees
engaged in construction work by complying with the appropriate standards prescribed in this paragraph.” Section
1910.12(b) defines “construction work” as
“work for construction, alteration, and/or
repair, including painting and decorating.”
In his lead opinion, OSHRC Chair
Railton noted that OSHA’s inconsistent
application of the Multi-Employer Citation
Policy was a factor in his decision. “It
seems to me that the checkered history of
continued on page 10
Construction
Practice Specialty
Administrator’s
Message
Blueprints
OFFICERS
David B. Korman
ow! What a conference! I hope
those of you who attended
Safety 2007 in Orlando, FL,
in June enjoyed it as much as I did and
were impressed by the number and quality of technical sessions related to construction safety.
The Professional Development Conference (PDC) has become a recognized
event among SH&E professionals in the
construction industry. This year, the program included 16 separate concurrent
construction-related sessions as well as
regulatory updates and case studies on construction safety presented by OSHA representatives. The Construction Practice
Specialty (CPS) held its first-ever key
issues roundtable, which addressed the
challenges of managing multiemployer
worksites and included a review and discussion of the OSHA Review Commission’s recent Summit Construction
decision. Thanks to Eric Voight and Neil
Webster for leading this discussion.
We also hosted the Construction
Forum, which was again a tremendous
success thanks to this year’s terrific panel,
which included Steven Witt, director of
OSHA’s Directorate of Construction,
Tony O’Dea, corporate safety director for
Gilbane Building Cos. and James Brown
of the Associated General Contractors of
America. I enjoyed the opportunity to
serve as moderator of this session, which
is the cornerstone of the practice specialty’s activity at the PDC.
In addition, CPS held its annual
Advisory Committee meeting. This meeting is really the only opportunity for us to
meet face to face. This year, we set the
table to embark on new goals and to identify those areas where we can better serve
you. We have established the following
key goals:
•Sponsor a construction symposium.
•Develop a program to achieve a certificate in construction safety management.
•Continue to establish intersociety
W
2 Vol. 7 • No. 1
ADMINISTRATOR
relations with other pertinent construction
safety organizations.
CPS could use your help with the following committees. If you are interested
in participating, please send me an e-mail
or give me a call.
David B. Korman
973.753.3652
[email protected]
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
Michael W. Hayslip
937.434.8952
[email protected]
NEWSLETTER EDITOR
Membership
Assist with needs survey, contact new and
existing members, and work with the
Advisory Committee to better serve our
membership.
Communications
Help develop and plan Blueprints and
maintain the CPS website. ASSE handles
our website layout, so we need volunteers
to help plan content and work with the
committee to keep the information current and informative.
Awards & Honors
Assist in nominations for the CPS Safety
Professional of the Year Award and other
awards to ensure proper recognition of
those who have contributed to not only
the Society, but to CPS and the construction industry as a whole. Additional
efforts will focus on other awards and
honors.
Conference & Seminars Chair
Work with the Advisory Committee and
CPS to serve as a speakers’ bureau for
professional development, assist in PDC
planning, and support local and regional
PDCs.
We welcome all who would like to get
involved and help. You will find your
involvement to be both rewarding professionally and fun.
Neil Webster
978.247.3253
[email protected]
COMMITTEES
AWARDS & HONORS
Paul Weida
[email protected]
BODY
OF
KNOWLEDGE
Laura Lee-Casey
[email protected]
CONFERENCES & SEMINARS
Barry Conway
[email protected]
MEMBERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
Marion Synowiec
[email protected]
NOMINATIONS
Ron Sokol
[email protected]
WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT
Eric Voight
[email protected]
STAFF LIAISON
Rennie Heath
847.768.3436
[email protected]
NEWSLETTER DESIGN & PRODUCTION
Susan Carlson
ASSE headquarters staff
[email protected]
Blueprints is a publication of ASSE’s Construction
Practice Specialty, 1800 E. Oakton St., Des Plaines,
IL 60018, and is distributed free of charge to members of the Construction Practice Specialty. The
opinions expressed in articles herein are those of the
author(s) and are not necessarily those of ASSE.
Technical accuracy is the responsibility of the
author(s). Please send address changes to the
address above; fax to (847) 768-3434; or send via
e-mail to [email protected].
Reactions to OSHRC’s Decision
on Multi-Employer Worksites
s SH&E professionals, you are
likely aware of the Occupational
Safety and Health Review Commission’s (OSHRC) recent decision regarding multiemployer worksites. Many
Construction Practice Specialty members
have asked to learn more about this issue
and how ASSE members have responded
to OSHRC’s decision.
The ANSI A10 Accredited Standards
Committee (ASC) for Construction and
Demolition Operations has discussed this
issue in depth. The informal comments
reflect the most common insights from
the committee, but they should in no way
be viewed as the committee’s formal
position. The committee did not express
concern about distribution of these views
as it was made clear that this is not a formal position of the A10 ASC or ASSE as
its secretariat.
A
ANSI A10 ASC Comments
“The decision is a significant surprise.
While the multiemployer topic is generally a hot one, OSHRC’s decision was
unexpected.”
“Since the A10 standards have included the concept of the controlling employer for so long, this does not change what
the A10 Committee sees as a best practice. Some of the OSHA multiemployer
policy seems to have been originally
based (somewhat perhaps) on the longtime concepts of the A10 standards. On
Page 12 of the report, they talk in part
about voluntary national consensus standards as historic documents.”
“A number of A10 members commented that this probably will not change
how large companies conduct their operations, but smaller contractors could
change their operations down the road.
Will the decision take an emphasis off of
safety and health?”
“How will large projects be insured in
the future? Underwriting and policies
were conducted/issued before with the
idea that one entity responsible would be
responsible for safety and health coordination on site. That might not change, but
it could. If that were to change, would
insurers conduct more inspections more
frequently and would rates rise?”
Individual ASSE
Member Perspectives
“I read the ruling and agree with OSHRC
in its application of the standard. I believe
it is incumbent upon all at a construction
site to take any necessary action to protect
everyone working on the site from injury.
I also agree with the A10 Committee
concept of the general contractor as the
controlling employer. In this case, the discussion in the ruling indicates that the
general contractor’s representative had
requested remediation of the hazard, which
recurred each time the scaffold was moved.
Could a clause be included in future contracts that allows the general contractor to
fine the subcontractor when there are
repeated violations of the same safety rule?
“My experience with contractors in
our facility is that generally they want
their employees to work safe. They are
usually effective in enforcing our safety
rules with their employees. Although in
the rare occasion when a contractor
seems less interested in safety, an offer to
assign their contract to another vendor
will improve compliance dramatically.”
“In my view, Summit makes an interesting and valid argument, and while
California is not a federal state, the
Cal/OSHA Appeals Board is wrestling
with this exact argument and decision as
we speak. For any contractor, general
contractor or subcontractor to properly
document noncompliance and to request
hazard abatement, one would think
OSHA can see the efforts to protect life
and act accordingly, as neither I as a subcontractor safety professional can force
another contractor to abate such hazards.
I can merely raise my concern to the
appropriate level and document such
instances properly and thoroughly.
It will be interesting to see where this
goes nationally in coming years. In
California, we have one ruling for each
side of the argument thus far.”
State-Plan-State Perspective
The greatest concerns ASSE has received
regarding OSHRC’s decision come from
ASSE members who work in OSHA stateplan-states. Dan Sabatino, CHST, CSHM,
a safety and loss control consultant and
ASSE member in Oregon, provides an
overview of what has taken place in
Oregon and offers additional information
about state-plan-states.
Effective Dec. 10, 1999, OSHA implemented the Multi-Employer Citation
Policy (CPL 2-0.124). This directive
intended to clarify the OSHA multiemployer citation policy and to replace
Chapter III. C. 6 of OSHA’s Field
Inspection Reference Manual (FIRM).
This document allowed more than one
employer to receive a citation for a hazardous condition based on the following
two-step process of qualification:
1) the type of employer (creating,
exposing, correcting or controlling);
2) whether or not the employer’s
actions (or inactions) are sufficient to
meet the obligations to cite.
We found the directive to be more confusing than clarifying. That coupled with
events in the safety community at the time
prompted Oregon employers to unite and
to develop the multiemployer worksite
(MEW) citation guidelines as they appear
today in Oregon OSHA Program Directive
A-257 (issued Dec. 15, 2006).
The Oregon guidelines focus on elements that clarify responsibilities and
improve safety in the workplace.
Control
1) By either direct employment relationship with an employee exposed to a
hazard or
2) By the authority to direct how
employees accomplish their tasks.
Knowledge
1) If the employer had knowledge or
could have known for a reasonable period
of a hazardous condition, but
2) Not hazards unique to another
employer’s specialty occupation unless
they had knowledge for a reasonable
period.
The Oregon guidelines address:
•knowledge of a hazard in order to be
held responsible for its correction;
•the necessity for any employer on a
MEW to take steps to perform frequent
and regular inspections of the jobsite;
continued on page 4
Blueprints 3
Reactions to
OSHRC’s Decision
continued from page 3
•the ability of OR-OSHA to issue an
“Order to Correct,” which requires an
employer not cited to take reasonable
steps to abate the hazard;
•prior to issuing a citation related to
the inspection of a MEW, the employer
can request a “second conference” to
establish criteria for a citation in relation
to the MEW guidelines.
This process has virtually eliminated
multiple entities cited for the same hazard
and has also closed the avenue for those
who write safety out of their responsibilities. The directive is printed here.
Oregon Occupational Safety and
Health Division Department of
Consumer and Business Services
Program Directive: A-257
Issued: Dec. 15, 2006
Subject: Multi-Employer Workplace
Citation Guidelines
Affected Standards/Directives
ORS 654.071(4), OAR 437-0010760(1)(a), OAR 437-003, Subdivision
C, 1926.20(b), OAR 437-001-0760(7)(a)
and OAR 437-001-0099
Purpose
These guidelines provide directions to
compliance officers on how to issue citations at multiemployer worksites. They
do not preclude inspections to determine
whether or how to issue appropriate
citations. They do not constitute rules,
policies or statements of rights. The
guidelines have general application to
owners, general contractors and subcontractors on any multi-employer worksites
that have a direct (e.g., general contractor
to subcontractor) or indirect (e.g., subcontractor to subcontractor, owner to subcontractor, etc.) contractual relationship to
one another. These guidelines do not
supersede responsibilities set out elsewhere such as those in the Hazard
Communication Standard, Asbestos,
Confined Space, etc.
Definitions
A. Control: An employer will be determined to have sufficient control to abate
hazardous conditions on a multi-employer worksite when it either:
1) has a direct employment relationship with an employee exposed to the
hazard;
4 Vol. 7 • No. 1
2) has the authority to direct, or actually directs, how other employers and/or
their direct employees are to safely
accomplish their specific job tasks.
Exceptions
1) An employer does not have control if
it did not create the hazardous condition
that violates OR-OSHA regulations unique
to another employer’s specialty occupation,
unless it had knowledge of the hazardous
condition for a reasonable period.
2) Control sufficient to abate a violation
cannot be based solely on an employer’s
right to terminate or to suspend work to
correct unsafe working conditions nor on
an employer’s authority to remove another
employer’s employee from the site for nonconformance with OR-OSHA regulations
or other safety plans or obligations.
B. Knowledge: An employer on an
MEW will be determined to have knowledge of the existence of a hazardous
condition if the employer had actual
knowledge or with the exercise of reasonable diligence could have known for a
reasonable period of a condition or practice at the worksite that constituted a safety or health hazard.
Exception
Under no circumstances will an employer
be determined to have knowledge of hazards related to violations unique to another
employer’s specialty occupation unless the
first employer had knowledge of the hazardous condition for a reasonable period.
C. Reasonable Period: A brief period
of time that, with the exercise of due diligence, would allow the employer to take
appropriate steps to have the safety or
health hazard abated or exposure to the
hazard eliminated.
Action
A. OR-OSHA Actions
1) OR-OSHA will identify which
employers on MEW are responsible for
hazardous conditions. The identified
employers that have “knowledge” of the
hazardous conditions and exercise, or
have the right to exercise, direct control
over the work practices of employees
who could reasonably have been exposed
to such conditions may be cited. It is OROSHA’s intent to cite only those employers responsible for violations of the
Oregon Safe Employment Act.
2) OR-OSHA may issue an “Order to
Correct” pursuant to ORS 654.071(1)
requiring an employer that was not cited
to take reasonable steps to abate an existing hazard and/or to avoid the reoccurrence of a hazard. Failure to comply with
such an order will subject the employer to
citation based on ORS 654.071(4).
B. Citation Guidelines
•Worksite Inspections: Any employer
involved in a multi-employer workplace
may be cited pursuant to OAR 437-0010760(1)(a), OAR 437-003, Subdivision C,
1926.20(b) and OAR 437-001-0760(7)(a)
for failing to take reasonable steps to provide for frequent and regular inspections of
the jobsite to be made on the employer’s
behalf by its employees or agents as often
as the type of operation requires.
•Exposing Employer: Any employer in
a multiemployer workplace may be cited
if it exposes employees over whose work
practices it has direct control, or the right
to exercise direct control, to hazards of
which it has knowledge.
•Controlling Employer: Any employer
that has sufficient control over a multiemployer workplace to cause hazardous conditions to be abated may be cited for
failing to do so if that employer had
knowledge of the hazard and there is a
reasonable likelihood that employees over
whose work practices it exercised direct
control, or had the right to exercise direct
control, could have been exposed to the
hazardous conditions.
•Creating Employer: Any employer in
a multiemployer worksite that causes a
hazardous condition to be created may be
cited if it has knowledge of the hazard
and there is a reasonable likelihood that
employees over whose work practices it
has direct control, or the right to exercise
direct control, could have been exposed
to the hazardous condition.*
C. Closing Conference
1) Prior to issuing a citation relating to
an inspection of a multiemployer workplace, the compliance officer will conduct
a closing.
2) At the employer’s request, a second
conference will be held, either in person
or by telephone within a reasonable time
as long as the conference does not impact
the timeliness of a citation.
3) A designated manager knowledgeable in the application of OR-OSHA’s
multiemployer workplace citation guidelines will conduct the second conference.
continued on page 20
A10.33-1998 Standard: Safety & Health Program
Requirements for Multi-Employer Projects
eaffirmed in 2004, the A10.331998 standard, Safety and Health
Program Requirements for MultiEmployer Projects, continues to provide
project constructors with guidelines for
the basic duties that contribute to a safe
and healthy construction worksite. This
national voluntary consensus standard
presents the minimum elements and
activities of a program that defines the
responsibilities of a construction project
in which a single project constructor
supervises and controls the project.
The standard addresses several topics,
including project safety and health
requirements, disciplinary procedures,
senior project supervisor responsibilities,
senior contractor supervisor responsibilities, construction process, pre-work and
emergency plans, permit systems, notifications and training.
Job hazard analysis samples, project
safety and health forms, and jobsite surveys also are included as appendices in
the standard for quick and easy reference.
Government agencies such as the OSHA,
NIOSH, the Department of Energy and
others recognize A10.33 as a valuable
R
resource for developing effective safety
and health programs for construction
worksites.
For more information on the A10.33
standard or to purchase it, visit www
.asse.org/shoponline/products/3833.php.
A10.33 Table of Contents
1.
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.
3.
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.
5.
5.1
General
Scope
Purpose
Modifications and Exemptions
Definitions
Project Safety and Health
Requirements
Implementation
Responsibilities and Authority
Combined Responsibilities
Program Assignments
Assessment of Qualifications
Hazard Reporting
Special Safety & Health Plan
Monthly Status Report
Critical Structures and
Complex Processes
Disciplinary Procedures
Senior Project Supervisor
Designation
5.2
Responsibilities
5.3
Corrective Action
5.4
Presence on Project
6.
Senior Contractor Supervisor
6.1
Designation
6.2
Responsibilities
6.3
Corrective Action
6.4
Presence on Project
7.
Construction Process Plan
7.1
Development
7.2
Test Check List
8.
Pre-Work Planning
8.1
Project Survey
8.2
Hazard Analysis
8.3
Pre-Phase Planning Meeting
9.
Emergency Plan
10.
Permit System
11.
Notification
12.
Training
12.1
Responsibility
12.2
Types of Training
Appendix A - Job Hazard Analysis
Appendix B - Monthly Status Report
Appendix C - Project Safety and
Health Forms
Appendix D - Survey of Job Site
Update: ANSI/ASSE A10.40-2007
eduction of Musculoskeletal
Problems in Construction (ANSI/
ASSE A10.40-2007), a project of
the ANSI Accredited A10 Standards
Committee (ASC) for Construction and
Demolition Operations, received final
ANSI approval on July 23, 2007.
Before ANSI approves any American
National Standard, it must verify that the
standards developer has met the requirements for due process and consensus.
Consensus is established when directly
and materially affected interests reach
substantial agreement, which means more
than a simple majority but not necessarily
unanimity. Consensus also requires that
all views and objections be considered
and that a concerted effort be made
toward their resolution.
Use of standards such as A10.40-2007
is voluntary. Their existence in no way
precludes anyone, whether s/he has
approved the standards or not, from manufacturing, marketing, purchasing or
R
using products, processes or procedures
not in conformance to the standards.
Impact on Public
& Private Sectors
Many have asked how the standard will
impact the public and private sectors now
that it has received final approval. Use of
national consensus standards in the U.S.
will be of increased importance as the
nation’s economy becomes more global.
National consensus standards reflect the
insights of the final users and the opinions of professionals who work at all levels of the public and private sectors in
technology development, safety and
health, manufacturing, training, financial
analysis, personnel and academia. This
balanced perspective enables standards to
be crafted in a manner that benefits and
protects standard users.
ASSE historically supports the
increased use of national consensus stan-
dards in the formulation of occupational
safety and health legislation. Government
agencies such as OSHA, MSHA, CPSC
and NHTSA should be encouraged to use
these standards in accordance with Public
Law 104-113, the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995,
and the Office of Management and
Budget in its Circular A-119, Federal
Participation in the Development and Use
of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in
Conformity Assessment Activities. These
standards provide an efficient and effective alternative to traditional public sector
rulemaking. It should be noted that the
A10.40-2007 standard contains language
indicating that the standard is not intended for regulatory use.
A10 ASC & A10.40
The A10 ASC has existed since 1944. Over
the years, committee members have dedicontinued on page 6
Blueprints 5
ANSI/ASSE A10.40-2007
continued from page 5
cated themselves to developing voluntary
consensus standards that protect against
fatalities and injuries on construction and
demolition sites. Data and statistics indicate that the committee has contributed
significantly to the construction and demolition industry and has helped create safer
and more healthful workplaces.
The A10 ASC approved the title and
scope of the project during its Jan. 8,
2002, meeting. The scope and title were
subsequently reviewed and approved
again at other A10 ASC meetings, and a
public review was announced.
Between 2002 and 2006, the A10.40
draft standard underwent a series of subgroup and full-committee ballots and
recirculations to reach consensus. Each
ballot and recirculation was conducted in
accordance with accredited procedures.
Following final recirculation of the
standard in 2006, it appeared that some
organizations intended to retain their negative ballots and planned to pursue a
developer-level appeal at the conclusion
of the standards development process.
During 2006, a series of appeals was filed
against the committee and the secretariat.
A panel was assembled, and a hearing
was held May 1, 2007. During the hearing, appellants voiced formal complaints,
gave presentations and were asked to provide a response with their findings in
writing 30 calendar days following the
end of the hearing. From the A10 ASC’s
perspective, the main concerns raised during the appeals are as follows:
Issue 1: The record shows a lack of
true consensus under ANSI due process
requirements since some members from
the employer category continued to maintain their negative vote.
The committee disagreed and pointed
out that the employer category was not
“near-unanimous” in its opposition to the
A10.40 draft standard, as was claimed in
the complaints. Approximately 50% of
the employer category voted in favor of
the standard. It also was noted that during
each ballot/recirculation, progress was
made toward consensus, as the document
was changed and edited per discussions
with outstanding objectors. The record
indicates that significant effort was made
to reach consensus through ballot(s),
recirculation(s), meeting(s), conference
6 Vol. 7 • No. 1
call(s), letter(s) and articles published in
the construction and demolition industry
trade press.
Issue 2: The A10.40 standard is
indefensible and was approved in the
absence of data, good science and sound
technology.
The committee disagreed with this
claim and took the position that its decisions were based on data, good science
and sound technology. The secretariat
also reviewed the record and reported that
it appeared the A10 ASC was guided in
its decisions by data, good science and
sound technology. The A10 ASC has
reviewed many documents for data and
science, and from the committee’s viewpoint, current data and science substantiated the need for the standard.
National consensus standards
reflect the insights of the
final users and the opinions
of professionals who work
at all levels of the public and
private sectors in technology
development, safety and
health, manufacturing,
training, financial analysis,
personnel and academia.
The appellants also appeared to have
disregarded the data and science of the federal government, but the committee chose
not to do so. A difference of opinion existed within the committee with regard to data
and science, and the committee reached a
consensus to support what the federal government has published. The committee
pointed out that its objective was to reach
consensus based on the requirements of its
accredited procedures and the ANSI
Essential Requirements Document. It was
not required to have universal and unanimous approval and agreement.
Issue 3: The A10 ASC did not make
the required “concerted” effort to resolve
negative ballots.
The secretariat reported that it takes
claims of dominance and of not responding to outstanding objectors seriously
and, thus, investigated the voting record
of the A10.40 draft standard and other
standards to see whether the employer
category on the A10 ASC had been sub-
jugated by other interest categories of the
A10 ASC. The investigation and analysis
appeared to indicate that the appellants’
claims were inaccurate.
Panel Findings
On May 25, 2007, the panel released its
findings. Based on the information and
presentations provided by the interested
parties, the panel concluded that that the
appeal(s) presented by each of the appellants were non-persuasive and that the
secretariat had complied with ANSI due
process.
The A10 secretariat then submitted the
A10.40 standard to the ANSI Board of
Standards Review (BSR) for administrative review and approval. ANSI approved
the standard on July 23, 2007.
Outstanding objectors to the proposed
standard may still file additional appeals
with ANSI now that the standard is
approved. In accordance with ANSI
requirements, those objecting to the final
approval action and who have completed
the appeals process at the developer level
can also file a procedural appeal. Organizations not appealing at the developer
level are normally not eligible to appeal
to the BSR. The appeal must be based on
procedural criteria and must include a
statement as to why the BSR action
should be modified. BSR as a practice
will not render decisions on the relative
merits of technical matters, but it considers whether due process was afforded
technical concerns.
Structure & Contents
of the A10.40-2007 Standard
A10.40-2007 is approximately 30 pages
long and includes a series of non-mandatory appendix materials. It follows the
same format as other A10 standards.
Following are the scope, purpose and
modifications/exemptions of the standard
followed by its table of contents.
1.1 Scope. This standard applies to
construction work where there may be
risk factors that could lead to musculoskeletal problems for construction
workers. It does not apply to office or
administrative work performed by construction companies.
1.2 Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to reduce occupational contributions to musculoskeletal problems in
continued on page 20
Designing for Construction Safety:
Opportunities for Design Professionals
By John W. Mroszczyk, Ph.D., P.E., CSP
he Design for Safety (DFS)
process—also known as Prevention
Through Design (PtD)—involves
eliminating or mitigating hazards in the
design stages of a project rather than
attempting to manage them later. Increased
productivity, significant reduction in
injuries, reduced operating costs and
reduced retrofitting are some benefits of
addressing safety early (Hagan, 2001). The
application of DFS to construction projects
is a relatively new idea. It goes against the
“traditional” approach where safety is
managed after the project is underway.
The Designing for Construction Safety
(DfCS) model extends the designer’s role
to include construction site safety, constructability and maintenance in the design
phase. DfCS has the potential to reduce
construction injuries and fatalities.
Significant activity has occurred since
DfCS was first introduced in the Spring
2006 edition of Blueprints. DfCS has
been presented at national conferences. A
collaborative effort with NIOSH, PtD, has
been initiated. As a result, new issues
have arisen and are being addressed. This
article discusses several of these issues, a
new 2- to 4-hour course for design professionals and other initiatives proposed
by the OSHA Alliance Design for Safety
Workgroup.
T
Conventional Approach to
Construction Versus DfCS
In most industry groups, design and fabrication takes place under one “roof.” The
design engineers, the shop and the assembly workers are all employed by the same
entity. The responsibilities are welldefined. If design engineers have a question about how their designs will be
implemented, they can walk downstairs
or down the hall and ask. Assembly is
streamlined. Sequencing problems are
worked out ahead of time.
Construction is different. The design
professional and fabricator (contractor)
are not under the same “roof.” They
are two separate entities bound by separate contracts. Under the conventional
approach to a building project, the owner
separately contracts with an architect/
engineer and with a general contractor,
prime contractor, construction manager,
program manager or owner’s agent. An
owner may choose to contract with a
design/build firm to perform both design
and construction.
Design professionals prepare plans and
specifications that comply with state and
local building codes. The codes are written to protect the public by requiring certain minimum requirements for the
completed building. Code provisions
regarding construction safety are directed
toward protecting pedestrians, adjoining
property and public rights-of-way (IBC,
2003), not the workers. The plans and
specifications are legal documents that
communicate the details on how the
building should be constructed.
Currently, no legal obligation exists for
design professionals to consider construction safety. Contract documents and scope
of work are at best vague when it comes to
requiring designers to design for worker
safety (Toole, 2005). Some have looked to
the Engineer’s Code of Ethics for guidance
that construction workers should be included with the “public.” [Note: The Engineers
Code of Ethics requires that engineers shall
“. . . hold paramount the safety, health and
welfare of the public.”] While it might not
make logical sense that building design
should include the public but not the people who build building, the definition of
“public” clearly does not include construction workers. (ANSI A10.34 defines “public” as “all persons and property not
affiliated with the construction project.”)
Besides legal obligations, costs also limit
designers. Project design costs would
increase if designers spent more time on
the construction safety-related aspects of
a project.
Contractors must implement the
design and maintain jobsite safety at the
same time. Federal OSHA regulations (29
CFR 1926) control the construction phase
of a project with regard to worker safety.
Frequently, this comes down to managing
safety in a somewhat haphazard manner.
A portion (or all) of the construction
work may be subcontracted to specialty
trade contractors. The safety responsibili-
ties can become blurred. Some contractors may pass safety responsibilities
onto others.
Designers’ Understanding
of the Construction Process
There is concern that designers may not
be knowledgeable in the construction
process. This requires an understanding
of the hazards involved, how each task is
performed, the sequencing between the
tasks and how the work is coordinated.
Several resources are already available to
designers, such as the OSHA construction
regulations (29 CFR 1926). These regulations cover the basic components of construction work, such as noise exposure,
ventilation, fall protection, flammable and
combustible liquids, material handling
and storage, hand tools, power tools,
welding and cutting, electricity, scaffolds,
cranes, excavations, concrete and masonry and steel erection.
For example, 1926.52 governs occupational noise control. Specifying equipment, a compressor, for example, that has
noise levels less than Table D-2 would be
a better choice than that which requires a
hearing conservation program or PPE.
Fall protection is addressed in Subpart
M. Knowing that guardrails should be at
least 39 in. high, a designer might choose
to design parapet walls or window sills
that are at least 39 in. high so that fall
protection would not be required.
Specifying permanent anchorage points
would provide a tie-off point, making it
easier to use fall protection. Specifying
trenchless technology precludes protective systems that would be required for an
open excavation (Subpart P).
Other resources specifically tell
designers what to do in various situations.
The Construction Industry Council has
many guidelines for designers, which can
be found at www.safetyindesign.org.
These guidelines include interior finishes,
demolition, excavations, steelwork,
masonry, mechanical services and electrical services. For example, Technical
Guidance Note T20.009 addresses roofs.
Following is a portion of T20.009.
continued on page 8
Blueprints 7
Designing for
Construction Safety
continued from page 7
Excerpt from Technical
Guidance Note T20.009
Hazards Associated
with Work on Roofs
6) Workers on roofs are exposed to the
hazard of falling from height. This can
either be off an unguarded edge or
through a fragile surface.
7) Manual handling and premature
collapse hazards also exist.
What Designers Should Do
8) Designers should consider two
phases: the construction phase and the
maintenance phase.
The construction phase:
9) During this phase, it is inevitable
that people will need to be on the roof,
and designers should consider providing
for systems that will help contractors
manage the hazard of falling from height.
Falls Off Unguarded Edges
10) Constructing a roof creates an
advancing unprotected leading edge and
the risk of falling off this edge. Therefore,
designers should consider provisions to
protect workers from this hazard by:
a) providing effective anchor points for
safety nets;
b) where 1) is not possible, provisions
should be made for anchoring PPE to
structural members with sufficient
strength;
c) optimize the locations of closeunder-the roof obstructions (e.g., service
ducts) that are in the deflection zone of
fall arrest devices.
Designers’
Knowledge of Safety
There is concern that designers may lack
safety training as well. In a 2002 survey
of 75 U.S. design engineering firms, only
20% of the firms indicated that more than
50% of their employees had received
safety training. Nearly 70% stated that
less than 25% of the employees had
received safety training (Toole, 2005).
Designers can obtain or supplement their
safety training from professional organizations such as ASSE, National Safety
Council and Board of Certified Safety
Professionals.
While many engineers have not had a
8 Vol. 7 • No. 1
formal course in safety, safety is part of an
engineers’ way of thinking. For example,
one viewpoint of the engineering profession is that all professional engineers
(P.E.s) must be knowledgeable in safety
(Haight, et al, 2004). Otherwise, how does
a P.E. comply with one of the fundamental
canons of the engineering profession?
Anything that is intended to be used by a
human or the failure of which could injure
a human must be designed with safety in
mind. This would include buildings.
Design for
Construction Safety Course
The OSHA Alliance has developed the
DfSC 2- to 4-hour course to address these
concerns by providing training for design
professionals. The course is free and can
be downloaded from ASSE’s website at
(www.asse.org/professionalaffairs/docs/2to
4hour.pdf). The course can be tailored to
suit the needs of the particular organization. The course covers topics such as what
DfCS is and why it is necessary; construction accident statistics; design pay off;
hazard identification and elimination; recognized and hidden hazards; the design for
safety process; potential areas of concern;
and case studies. The course can be used
for lunchtime seminars, Society meetings,
company training or as an educational tool
for design professionals. ASSE chapter
presidents, for example, could use the
course at monthly meetings.
Examples of DfCS
Building Features
Case studies and examples of DfCS building features can be found in the DfCS
generic presentation (see OSHA Support
for DfCS), the DfCS course and the
Photo 1 Prefabricated steel stairs. Prefabricating components reduces the number of work tasks that much be performed above ground.
Photo 2 Shows roof anchorage points. By designing fixed and
structurally sound anchorage points, workers will have convenient points from which to tie off during construction and future
maintenance.
Design Best Practices (DBP) website at
www.dbp.org.uk. The DBP website has
more than 100 case studies. For example,
prefabrication can make a big difference.
Anytime a building system is built on the
ground, fewer activities will be performed
aboveground, which reduces the chance of
a fall injury. Photo 1 shows prefabricated
steel stairs. Other prefabricated components include walls and bridge segments.
Designing and specifying anchorage
points make it easier for workers to use fall
protection systems. Photo 2 shows anchorage points on the roof of a commercial
building. Photo 3 shows tie-offs installed
on a residential building. Additional design
features include beams above floor openings to support lanyards and lanyard connection points along beams.
Skylights are another example.
Designers can design permanent guards
around skylights (Photo 4). Other design
features include domed, rather than flat,
skylights. These features will protect construction and future maintenance workers.
OSHA Support for DfCS
OSHA’s Alliance Program Construction
Roundtable Design for Safety Workgroup
actively supports DfCs. Workshop members include:
•American Society of Civil Engineers
Construction Institute;
•ASSE;
•Independent Electrical Contractors;
•International Association of
Foundation Drilling;
•Laborers’ Health and Safety Fund of
North America;
•Mason Contractors Association of
America;
•National Fire Protection Association;
•National Institute for Occupational
Safety & Health;
•Sealant, Waterproofing and
Restoration Institute;
•Washington Group International.
The workgroup has produced several
products, including a generic DfCS presentation, the DfCS course and a case
study of a mixed waste treatment facility.
These work products are available at
www.osha.gov/dcsp/alliances/round
tables/roundtables_construction.html.
Group members have made presentations
at national conferences such as ASSE’s
Safety 2006 conference, the 2006 VPPPA
Conference, the 2006 NSC Congress and
the 2007 OSHA On-Site Consultation
Training Conference. An OSHA 10-hour
training course for design professionals is
in development. For more information,
contact LeeAnne Jillings at Jillings
[email protected].
Conclusion
The DfCS approach to construction provides a new opportunity for design professionals. Design professionals can use
their skills to improve jobsite safety and
to reduce construction injuries and fatalities. Contractors will benefit from
reduced workers’ compensation claims
and streamlined construction sequencing.
Owners will benefit from reduced lifecycle costs. The DfCS process is moving
forward and contractors are
embracing it. For example,
Washington Group International’s
project safety program incorporates safety into the design and
constructability review.
DfCS will require a cultural
change. Construction safety must
be addressed in the early stages
of a project. The owner, design
professional(s) and contractor(s)
must work together as a team.
The owner controls the purse
strings of a project and, therefore,
must budget design time for
DfCS. Design professionals must
consider worker safety when
preparing plans and specifications. Contractors provide appropriate training for their employees
and observe safety rules and regulations.
From the designers’ standpoint, revisions to the building codes to include
worker safety are years down the road.
Changes to engineering curricula requiring courses in safety may or may not
occur but are also years down the road.
Professional liability is another potential
barrier that has not been discussed in this
article. In the meantime, design professionals can use their training and available knowledge to produce designs that
are safe to build. 䡲
References
ANSI. (2005). Protection of the public
on or adjacent to construction sites.
ANSI/ASSE A10.34-2005. New York:
Author.
Hagan, P. (2001). Accident prevention
manual for business and industry,
engineering and technology. Itasca,
IL: National Safety Council.
Haight, J., Brauer, R., Stickle,
R., et al. (2004). Where does the
safety engineering discipline fit
into the safety profession.
Proceedings of the 2004 ASSE
Professional Development
Conference, Las Vegas, NV, USA.
International Building Code
(IBC). (2003). International building code. Country Club Hills, IL:
Author.
Photo 3 By designing and installing roof
tie-offs, roofers have a structurally sound
anchor from which to tie off on when working
on a residential roof.
Photo 4 Permanent guards over skylights provide protection
when working on roofs.
Mroszczyk, J. (2006, Spring). Designing for construction worker safety.
Blueprints.
Mroszczyk, J. & Gambatese, J. (2006).
Designing for construction worker safety.
Proceedings of the 2006 ASSE Professional Development Conference, Seattle,
WA, USA.
National Society of Professional
Engineers. Code of ethics. Alexandria,
VA: Author. Retrieved Aug. 1, 2007, from
http://www.nspe.org/ethics/eh1-code.asp.
Toole, T.M. (2005, July). Increasing
engineers’ role in construction safety:
Opportunities and barriers. Journal of
Professional Issues in Engineering
Education and Practice, 199-207.
John W. Mroszczyk, Ph.D., P.E., CSP, is president of Northeast Consulting Engineers Inc. in
Danvers, MA. He is a past administrator of the
Engineering Practice Specialty and has served
on several committees for the Council on
Practices and Standards. Mroszczyk is ASSE’s
representative on the OSHA Alliance Program’s
Construction Roundtable Design for Safety
Workgroup and NIOSH Prevention Through
Design. He is a member of ASSE’s Greater
Boston Chapter.
Learn more about ASSE’s
technical publications
at www.asse.org.
Blueprints 9
OSHA’s Ability to Cite
General Contractors
continued from page 1
the multi-employer doctrine as expressed in
the Secretary’s ever-changing compliance
guidelines . . . taken in contrast with a regulation [Section 1910.12(a)] which has not
been amended since 1971, results in the latter trumping whatever reliance the Commission can place on the varying nature of
the policy,” the Chair wrote. Coincidentally,
the decision was issued on the last day of
Railton’s term as a commissioner. No successor has yet been nominated.
Commissioner Thompson wrote separately that Section 1910.12(a) was clearly
intended to be a limit on OSHA’s powers.
“It was intended to limit the Secretary’s
discretion to impose under the OSH Act
the duty under the [Construction Safety
Act] of prime (general) contractors at construction sites,” the commissioner noted.
In dissent, Commissioner Thomasina
V. Rogers asserted that the majority had
“reversed over 30 years of Commission
precedent.”
The Summit Decision’s
Application only to
“Construction Work”
It is important to understand that the
Summit decision does not affect OSHA’s
authority to continue issuing citations
under its Multi-Employer Citation Policy
where employers are not engaged in
what is defined as “construction work”
under Section 1910.12(b), but rather are
engaged in “general industry” work that
is subject to the various standards in 29
CFR Part 1910. Such work typically
involves work for maintenance purposes,
even if performed by construction contractors. The key is the nature of the work
being performed, not the nature of the
employer performing it.
This also means that where a contractor is performing work at an existing
facility, such as in an electric power plant
outage, a chemical plant “turnaround,” or
as a resident contractor in an industrial
facility, the Multi-Employer Citation
Policy still may be applied to cite host
employers if the contractor’s work is not
“construction work.”
The reason for this result is that the
decision is premised exclusively on an
interpretation of Section 1910.12(a), which
applies to “construction work,” and not
upon an examination of OSHA’s basic
authority under the OSH Act to issue
multiemployer citations. OSHA’s authority
to issue such citations has been upheld by
several federal courts of appeals.
Questions Created by
the Summit Decision
It is expected that OSHA will appeal the
Summit decision. OSHA appears to have
the choice of filing its appeal in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in
St. Louis, since the case arose in that circuit, or in the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta,
since Summit has is principal place of
business within that circuit.
While an appeal is pending, it is
unclear what will happen with citation
contest cases that are pending before
OSHRC administrative law judges, where
the citation involves “construction work”
and is premised on the Multi-Employer
Citation Policy. It can be expected that
many such cited employers will request
that such citations now be vacated.
Practice Specialty Fees to Increase
The Council on Practices and Standards
(CoPS) would like to inform you that effective
January 2008, the cost to join a practice specialty will increase from $15 to $20 (per practice specialty).
In the nearly 14 years since the last price
increase, ASSE and CoPS have worked hard to
keep practice specialty membership fees affordable, even during several postage rate hikes and
increasing printing and publication costs. The
minor $5 increase will be used to address rising
printing and postage costs as well as the additional labor and personnel needed to publish
each of the 13 different technical publications
and to provide our current high-caliber products
10 Vol. 7 • No. 1
and services. It will also position the practice
specialties for future growth and improvement.
Thanks to practice specialty members’ article contributions, we are pleased to see that the
technical publications have increased in quality
and page length. Most of the technical publications now average between 16 and 24 pages of
content, compared to the average length of
four to six pages in 1995. And, since it is
CoPS’ mission to give practice specialty members only the best product possible, the small
change in price will allow us to continue to
offer you the superior resources you depend on
and deserve. We appreciate your support and
understanding.
Another question is whether OSHA
will now change its enforcement policy,
and forbear from issuing such citations
while an appeal is pending. This does not
seem likely. Often, OSHA regards only
decisions of a Court of Appeals, rather
than OSHRC, as establishing binding
precedent. This may be especially so
where, as here, Railton’s term as a commissioner has expired and no successor
has yet been named.
The decision also is not binding on
states, such as California, that have their
own state plans for regulating occupational safety and health. Many state agencies
that adjudicate state-issued citations follow the precedent of federal OSHRC, but
generally such adherence is not required.
Similarly, state OSHA enforcement agencies are not required to follow federal
enforcement policies, and frequently do
not do so.
The decision also does not affect other
legal principles that influence the relative
obligations of contractors on a construction site as to safety and health issues,
such as state tort law, building codes, voluntary consensus codes and standards,
contract terms or insurance considerations. It is questionable, therefore,
whether the decision, even if affirmed,
will have a practical effect on the extent
to which general contractors seek to
direct, influence or control OSHA compliance and safety performance by subcontractors.
Nonetheless, if affirmed, the decision
represents a significant change in OSHA’s
enforcement authority in construction,
and could have a significant impact in
cases where citations are issued following
serious accidents. For example, OSHA
citations often are used in state court
damage actions or other collateral litigation as evidence of a contractor’s failure
to meet a recognized duty of care, and
significant OSHA citations can affect the
settlement value of collateral claims. 䡲
Stephen Yohay and Elizabeth Walsh are with the
law firm of Thelen Reid Brown Raysman &
Steiner, LLP. To learn more about Yohay, visit
www.thelen.com/index.cfm?section=attorney&fun
ction=Read&contactID=1487. To learn more
about Walsh, visit www.thelen.com/index.cfm?sec
tion=attorney&function=Read&contactID=1475
To visit Thelen Reid’s comprehensive website of
construction-related links, go to www.construc
tionweblinks.com.
Employee Safety Recognition
By Emmitt J. Nelson
he Construction Industry Institute’s
(CII) Zero Injury research revealed
that one of nine safety categories of
leadership used by those experiencing the
lowest injury rates was that of “evaluation,
recognition/reward.” “Evaluation” means
evaluating the success of the larger group
and also focusing on “individual” safety
performance. “Recognition/reward” means
a focus on “group” recognition and/or
reward for performance achievement but
does not exclude the recognition of small
group/team contributions. It also recognizes the value of formal one-on-one safety
performance evaluations and discussion
between employee and supervisor.
With just three words, CII research
summarized the human resource aspects
of a zero-injury culture of safety. I refer
to human resource because the words
“evaluation, recognition/reward” tell us
that “evaluating” the human contribution,
“recognizing” the human contribution and
“rewarding” the human contribution are
three distinct areas of employee leadership, in this case, “safety leadership.”
The three words evaluation, recognition/reward require much work to understand, plan and implement, and should
not be approached in a superficial manner. Where can one find information on
evaluation, recognition/reward systems
that are in use and proven successful?
We can look closely at one of the most
successful for that answer. S&B Engineers
and Constructors in Houston, TX, has pursued the zero-injury commitment since
1986. For 10 of the last 13 years, S&B has
had zero lost-time injuries, with six of
those occurring consecutively from 1997 to
2002. Their record for hours worked with
zero recordable injuries stands at 4.6 million consecutive hours (October 2003December 2004).
Over the last two decades, the company has perfected a slate of employeefocused evaluation, recognition/reward
activities that it is willing to share. S&B
President Jimmy Slaughter offers the following suggestions.
T
The S&B Way
First, S&B believes evaluation should be
constant and ongoing. It provides its
supervisory cadre with training in what
FIGURE 1 Total Recordable Incidence Rate: 1989-2006
Source: BLS estimates of occupational injury and illness rates for selected industries.
FIGURE 2 Lost Workday Incidence Rate: 1990-2006
Source: BLS estimates of occupational injury and illness rates for selected industries.
one could call, using an Internet term,
“streaming evaluation.” It is a day-to-day,
hour-by-hour process with employee
needs for safety improvement addressed
immediately and praise for a job well
done given immediately. With the above
process in operation, they do not conduct
yearly employee evaluations.
Second, S&B will have some form of
“Safety Thank You” at all times during a
project, i.e., popsicles at lunch, lunch for
the entire crew on occasion and forms of
small crew recognition. On a given project, the company will have three to five
celebrations at certain milestones in the
project at which time the company, for
example, furnishes food for everyone,
provides live entertainment and invites
families, with everything done to make it
a time of fun and celebration, maximizing
the praise and minimizing the speeches.
Third, at these events, S&B will hold a
lottery drawing for prizes. The lottery
seems to elicit excitement and is always a
center of interest for the employees. From
time to time, caps, shirts and jackets are
given as tokens of appreciation in recognition of past safety accomplishments.
Fourth, the company has a program of
recognition for “above and beyond the
call of safety duty” for individuals. These
are for uncommon and unique forms of
individual safety achievement and/or concontinued on page 20
Blueprints 11
OSHA 10: Key in Construction Safety Awareness
By Alagie Sanyang
Editor’s Note: Alagie Sanyang wrote this
article as part of a senior project for the
National Labor College in Silver Spring, MD.
At the time, he was a member of the Sheet Metal
Workers International Association (SMWIA),
Local 177 in Nashville, TN. Sanyang now works
as a project EH&S manager for Bovis Lend
Lease in Los Angeles, CA.
ome states, local governments and
contractors require that construction workers complete the OSHA
10 course before they are allowed to work
on public construction sites. This article
examines the effectiveness of the OSHA
10 course and questions whether it should
be a requirement. This article includes
information from students who have
taken the course and from construction
safety authorities.
The objective of the OSHA 10 course
is to reduce accidents by making students
(course participants) more aware of workplace hazards and of ways to prevent
possible accidents. Sixty-five percent of
the 200 respondents surveyed for this
research believe that safety awareness is
key in reducing construction accidents.
Eighty-nine percent also said that taking
the OSHA 10 course made them more
aware of their workplace hazards.
In response to the question of whether
or not completion of the OSHA 10 course
should be a requirement on construction
worksites, 87% of the respondents believe
that it should be. Seventy-seven respondents (38%) also said that knowledge
gained from the OSHA 10 course helped
them prevent a possible accident. Expert
authorities in construction safety contacted
for this research agreed that safety training
is key in reducing construction accidents.
Based on the data received, this research concluded that completion of the
OSHA 10 course should be required
for persons to work on a public construction site.
S
Introduction
A 33-year-old temporary employee died
when he fell from the platform of an aerial lift. The victim was assigned to help an
electrician replace burned-out bulbs in the
ceiling of a covered basketball court. The
victim and the electrician used the aerial
lift to ascend approximately 30 ft to
check the first light that was out. They
12 Vol. 7 • No. 1
discovered that they did not have the correct type of bulb with them. The victim
tightened the bulb that was not working,
and it came on. The electrician then lowered the lift, and once on the ground, he
went to get the correct bulbs from another
building, telling the victim to wait with
the lift. When the electrician returned
about 20 minutes later, he found the victim lying on the ground in a pool of
blood. He was transported to a local hospital but later died from his injuries
(TOSHA, 2005).
The cause of the accident was unknown; the only possible clue was the
minor bruises on the victim’s hands,
which indicate possible electric shock. It
was also evident that the victim was not
wearing fall arrest equipment, a personal
protection device one should wear anytime one operates an aerial lift.
During its investigation, the Tennessee
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (TOSHA) cited the employer for
12 violations. This is just one of the thousands of fatalities American workers suffer each year.
The constantly changing work environment of the construction industry
makes it one of the most dangerous
places to work. U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) data show that in 2005,
construction workers, who make up 9%
of the U.S. workforce, suffered more than
20% of the reported 5,702 work-related
deaths (BLS, 2006). That means on average between four and five construction
workers are killed on the job in the U.S.
every workday.
These fatalities are not the only
tragedies construction workers face.
Many more have disabling injuries, while
others suffer from occupational diseases
like silicosis. Around 50,000 workers also
die of construction-related injuries yearly.
The most vulnerable are construction
laborers (the term “construction laborers”
here refers to people who work on construction sites on a temporary basis and
do not have a trade, usually day laborers)
and new employees who do not have
basic safety training. As 10% of the construction workforce, “construction laborers” accounted for 26% of construction
fatalities in 2005, according to BLS data.
With many employers and some states
beginning to require that workers have an
OSHA 10 course completion card to be
allowed on public construction sites, this
article examines the effectiveness of the
OSHA 10 course for the construction
industry and its impact on worker safety
awareness and injury reduction.
Before elaborating on the history of
work-related injuries and their prevention,
this article will briefly discuss some of
the terms most commonly used in occupational safety and health. Terminologies
used in occupational safety and health
vary among countries, but some terms are
universal.
Generally, a hazard is something that
can cause harm if not controlled. A hazard has three modes: dormant (no people
around; no risk); armed (a person or people in the area; risk is present) and active
(human reaction is too slow to combat the
effect of the hazard; it is too late to prevent the consequences of the hazard).
A risk is the probability and severity of
the hazard causing harm, and to determine that risk factor, a hazard model
(sometimes called a proportional hazard
model) is used. This is a statistical technique for determining the probability that
an individual will experience an event
within a particular period of time.
Risk assessment is comprised of four
basic components:
1) Identify the risk.
2) Identify all affected by the risk
and how.
3) Evaluate the risk.
4) Identify and prioritize the required
action.
This is an important part of occupational safety and health, as much occupational
safety and health legislation usually
demands that a risk assessment be carried
out prior to making an intervention.
A History of OSHA 10
The federal government’s involvement in
administering worker safety and health
began in the 1890s with the passage of
bills governing coal mines and railroad
safety. Several other small regulations followed suit leading to the enactment of the
OSH Act in 1970. Following its enactment as a federal government agency in
1970, OSHA started voluntary outreach
training programs designed to teach
workers in workplace safety and standard
policy in 1971.
Although OSHA does not require
employees and employers to take or to
offer any specific training, Section
1926.21(a) of the OSH Act states that
“the Secretary shall, pursuant to Section
107(f) of the act, establish and supervise
programs for the education and training
of employers and employees in the recognition, avoidance and prevention of
unsafe conditions in employments covered by the act.” 1926.21(b)2 further
states that “the employer shall instruct
each employee in the recognition and
avoidance of unsafe conditions and the
regulations applicable to his environment
to control or to eliminate any hazards or
other exposure to illness or injury.” This
made employers in the construction
industry responsible for the training of
their employees in the recognition and
abatement of hazards in their workplace.
It should be noted that this rule applies
only to the construction industry.
OSHA’s outreach training program
offers training in different work areas,
including general industry, construction,
maritime and agriculture. The construction training program is divided into two
subparts, OSHA 10 and OSHA 30.
Topics in the 10-hour construction training include:
1) Introduction to OSHA;
2) Electrical, Subpart K;
3) Fall Protection, Subpart M;
4) Personal Protective and Lifesaving Equipment, Subpart E;
5) Material Handling, Storage, Use
and Disposal, Subpart H;
6) Tool-Hand and Power, Subpart I;
7) Scaffolds, Subpart L;
8) Cranes, Derricks, Hoists, Elevators and Conveyors, Subpart N;
9) Excavations, Subpart P;
10) Stairways and Ladders, Subpart X.
The first three topics are the core of
the training and are to be covered for at
least 1 hour each. The trainer may choose
any three of the remaining topics based
on trainees’ needs. The trainer is also
encouraged to emphasize trainees’ special
needs such as their trade hazards or hazards in their workplace.
Training is for hazard awareness (identification, avoidance, control and prevention), and not much emphasis is placed on
OSHA standards. FIGURE 1 Number of students trained
OSHA-authorized in the OSHA Outreach Program
trainers conduct the
350000
training using
300000
OSHA-recom250000
mended curricu200000
lum. Trainers are
150000
trained in one of
OSHA’s regional
100000
outreach centers.
50000
OSHA does not
0
certify trainers; it
authorizes them to
Genl Ind
Constr
conduct training.
After completion of
the course, students receive course comple- health in the U.S., as it saw the emergence of various voluntary agencies
tion cards at the recommendation of the
geared toward healthy work environments
trainers.
for workers. These milestones included
According to OSHA, with an increasthe founding of the American Medical
ing number of states, local governments,
private owners and contractors seeing the Association in 1847, and the founding of
the American Public Health Association
benefits of OSHA training and of requirin 1872. The turn of the century saw
ing at least 10-hour OSHA training, the
much bigger milestones with the unions
outreach program has grown rapidly.
gaining momentum, and also the 1911
Since this research could not find any
founding of ASSE. All these events
specific data on the number of students
helped raise broader awareness of occutrained in the OSHA 10 construction
pational safety and health and encouraged
course, Figure 1 shows the number of stulegislation for protecting worker health.
dents trained in the outreach program,
The emergence of pro-occupational
which includes OSHA 10 training. The
increase in student enrollment of more than safety and health agencies, employers’
200% within 6 years shows that the OSHA high cost of health insurance at the
beginning of the 20th century and gradual
outreach training program is gaining
concern for the safety and health of
momentum among construction workers.
their employees brought many positive
changes to the occupational safety and
Literature Review
health field. Some scholars believed that
Humankind has always valued a good
employers’ involvement in occupational
and long life. But this good and long life
safety and health was sincere while others
cannot be achieved easily in hazardous
believed that the reason for their involvework environments. Since the early 18th
ment was production numbers. “Once
century, much research and literature has
started, the legislation to protect Ameribeen published on workplace hazards
can workers spread to more comprehenand their effects on workers. “In 1700,
Ramazzini published the problem of ven- sive forms” (Heberle, 1998, p. xiv).
These achievements did not come
tilation in mines and that served to open
without challenges to workers. One of the
up thought on the matter of industrial
challenges workers faced was assumption
health” (Follmann, 1978).
of risk, which seldom held employers
Though occupational safety and health
responsible for workers’ injuries.
literature dates back hundreds of years,
Employers’ reasons included: “The workconcern for a healthy work environment
dates back to the beginning of humankind. er knew the job was dangerous,” “The
worker’s action helped cause the acciAs Follmann (1978) reasoned, “Clearly
dent,” and “. . . the accident was precipiany condition that created pain or suffertated by another worker, not the
ing, that resulted in the inability to follow
employer” (Hinze, 1997, p. 1).
customary and necessary pursuits or that
Hinze (1997) also noted that by the
brought about early death would be a matmid-20th
century, the common law of
ter of attention” (p. 12).
defense
gradually
gave way to statutory
The end of the 19th century was a
continued on page 14
milestone in occupational safety and
Blueprints 13
OSHA 10
continued from page 13
workers’ compensation laws, which transferred the responsibility of worker injury
from the employee to the employer (p. 1).
This resulted in employers taking responsibility for providing a safe and healthy
work environment for workers. “Although
the rate of reported injuries fell substantially over the past decade, the rate for
construction remains well above that
of the private sector” (Center to Protect
Workers Rights, 2004).
The 21st century brought more awareness, and governments held employers
liable for their workers’ safety and health.
Rhode Island enacted Legislation 11-52.2(b), which redefines criminal negli-
gence to include holding employers criminally liable for their employees’ willful
death or injury (New York Committee for
Occupational Safety and Health, 2004).
The state of Massachusetts enacted
Chapter 306 of the Acts of 2004, which
requires all contractors bidding on public
construction jobs to furnish employees
who have OSHA 10 training (Massachusetts Secretary of State, 2004). This
is a step in the right direction in reducing
construction site fatalities. Today, workplace safety does not simply mean following all the occupational safety and
health rules or having saw guards in place
(Fessenbecker, 1998).
In 21st-century America, many believe
the days of hazardous work environments
are a thing of the past or concentrated
FIGURE 2 Do you think the OSHA 10 training course
should be a requirement for construction workers
to be allowed on a construction site?
FIGURE 3 What do you think is the key in reducing
construction site injuries?
14 Vol. 7 • No. 1
only in mining and construction. Most
people do not know the hazards associated with their work. “Most of us really
do not understand the safety and health
risk associated with our jobs . . . yet we
remain ignorant of these risks, an ignorant that is literally killing us” (Kachuba
& Newman, 1999).
Methodology
The data used in this research include survey questionnaires of 200 construction
workers who are members of six different
trade unions across the country. Four hundred survey questionnaires were originally
sent to 10 different trade unions across the
country. Forty-five questionnaires were
received from Carpenters Union 185 in St.
Louis, MO; 26 from the Plumbers and
Steamfitters Local Union 33 in Des
Moines, IA; 24 from the International
Union of Painters and Allied Trades DC 36
in San Diego, CA; 23 from International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)
Local 25 in Long Island, NY; 50 from
Sheet Metal Workers International Association (SMWIA) Local 18 in Milwaukee,
WI; and 32 from IBEW Local 429 in
Nashville, TN.
The survey questionnaire was first drafted with 10 questions and distributed to the
author’s colleagues (safety specialists) and
the author’s professors who are authorities
in occupational safety. Following their
feedback, the questionnaire was broadened
to 14 questions to capture as much as
possible from the student’s experiences
(see Appendix A on pg. 17). The research
also used personal interviews with authorities in construction safety, and insurance
and government data from OSHA,
TOSHA, NIOSH and BLS.
Survey and interview participants had
all been told that it was an anonymous
research questionnaire on the effectiveness of the OSHA 10 training program.
They had also been asked whether they
thought this training should be required
on construction sites.
Most of the construction workers who
answered the questionnaire are trade union
members, which may be considered a limitation and a potential bias of this research.
Reaching out to diverse trades across the
country gave this research a broader view
of how people in general view this training
and its effectiveness, and the only means
this author had to reach this group is
through their local unions.
This research hopes to encourage
change at the government, institutional and
local union levels. It hopes to demonstrate
that OSHA 10 training is key in construction safety awareness and that awareness is
key in reducing construction injuries. This
research hoped to encourage the state of
Tennessee to follow other states (Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut) in
making it a requirement for construction
workers on public projects to have OSHA
10 course completion cards.
It will be also forwarded to Vanderbilt
University, one of the largest private
employers of construction workers in
Tennessee. This research will be forwarded to the executive board of the author’s
local union, SMWIA and the SMWIA
general president. It hopes to encourage
the SMWIA Local Joint Apprenticeship
Training Committee (JATC) to offer the
OSHA 10 course to new apprentices during their first two nights of school. The
same recommendation will be made to
the SMWIA general president to encourage other local unions’ JATCs that do not
teach the OSHA 10 course to follow suit.
The researcher interviewed people
who have taken the OSHA 10 course and
asked how the course impacted them and
their view of workplace safety. The interviewer also spoke with people who have
not yet taken the course about their views
on workplace safety. This research also
collects workplace safety data from cities
and states that made the OSHA 10 course
a requirement for construction workers to
be on a public construction worksites.
FIGURE 4 Did taking the OSHA 10 training course
make you more aware of your workplace hazards?
FIGURE 5 Did the OSHA 10 training course change
your attitude toward safety at work?
FIGURE 6 How much information in the OSHA 10
training course was new to you?
Data Presentation & Analysis
The answers from the survey were entered
into Microsoft Access graphs so that the
answers could be easily presented and analyzed. Personal interviews with construction authorities also are analyzed.
Accident prevention is the core of any
comprehensive safety training. The
knowledge students gain from safety
training and orientations can be measured
by how that knowledge helps them prevent potential accidents.
More than 38% of respondents said their
knowledge gained from the OSHA 10
course helped them prevent a potential accident. The 77 prevented accidents could have
resulted in fatalities and/or disabling injuries. More than 87% of respondents
(Figure 2) said that completion of the
OSHA 10 course should be required for
persons to be allowed on a construction site.
This confirms other results in the survey
with respect to respondents’ experiences
with the OSHA 10 course.
Figures 3 and 4 are the core of this
research paper. They address what most
people believe is key to reducing construction site injuries and whether or not
that is found in the OSHA 10 course.
Sixty-five percent of respondents
believe that safety awareness is key in
reducing construction fatalities, which
also suggests that it is key in reducing
construction injuries. It supports behavioral science since the more aware people
are of the hazards of their surroundings,
the more careful they will be. It should be
noted that all respondents who said
“other” noted all of the above.
This research suggests that safety
awareness cannot be achieved without
good management/corporate safety policy,
including comprehensive enforcement. The
fact that 89% of survey respondents say
that taking the OSHA 10 course made
them more aware of their workplace hazards makes the course an important part of
construction safety awareness.
One benefit of any safety training is to
change a person’s attitude toward safe
working habits. Thus, this research
addresses whether or not the OSHA 10
course changes a person’s attitude towards
safety and if the course is effective.
More than 75% (Figure 5) of the
respondents said that taking the OSHA 10
course encouraged them to change their
continued on page 16
Blueprints 15
OSHA 10
continued from page 15
attitude towards safety at work. This figure
is also supported by how much of the
information in the course was new to
respondents (Figure 6). Based on the data,
it is clear that the course teaches participants something new that may change their
attitude toward workplace safety.
Relevance of the course to people’s
real-life workplace hazards is very important when it comes to the training’s success and effectiveness.
OSHA emphasizes the need for
instructors to make the course relevant to
the students’ workplace hazards. Ninetyfour percent of respondents say that the
course was relevant to their workplace
safety, which gives the course great credibility. This also shows that instructors
have followed OSHA guidelines in making the training relevant to trainees’ specific needs.
Assessing the course on a scale was
important, as it gave students the opportunity to rate the training they had, which
includes the quality of instruction and the
material presented (Figure 7). The weighted average of 8.0 on a scale of 1 to 10 with
10 being the highest shows that students
gave the course a very good overall rating.
Figures 8 and 9 summarize respondent
demographics. This helped determine
how long the respondents have worked in
the construction industry, what their classifications are, what they see as the key to
reducing construction accidents, whether
or not these individuals have taken the
OSHA 10 course and how long they had
worked in the construction industry
before taking he course.
The length of time a person spends in
the construction industry is important, as
construction safety experts believe that
people who are new to construction are
more prone to accidents than more experienced workers. The length of time a
person has been in the construction industry also helps the person understand the
hazards involved in his job. Job classification is also important in general attitudes
toward safety. Those with more job
responsibilities (such as a higher title)
tend to be more safety conscious.
Though construction safety experts and
authorities contacted for this research have
different views on whether or not completion of the OSHA 10 training course
16 Vol. 7 • No. 1
FIGURE 7 On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the highest,
how would you rate the OSHA 10 training you had?
should be required on a construction worksite, they all agree that the course is a great
tool for construction safety awareness.
Conclusion &
Recommendations
After analyzing questionnaires and interviews, this research concludes that the
OSHA 10 training course is key in construction safety awareness, which can
help reduce accidents at construction
sites. Therefore, this research recommends that every employer in the construction industry have its employees
trained in the recognition, elimination
and abatement of safety hazards in their
workplace. This should include but not
be limited to at least the OSHA 10 training course.
Interviews with authorities in construction reveal that the best time to train construction workers in safety is when they are
new to the job. They will grow with safe
working habits or at least know what is safe
and not just assume. This research recommends offering the OSHA 10 course the
first two nights of school to all new apprentices as part of their indenture program.
This should not be limited to the author’s
union (SMWIA), but to all building trades
who offer an apprenticeship program.
A leading cause of death among construction workers is being struck by a
falling object. It is among the many accidents in which someone else other than the
victim is the direct cause. Therefore, it is
necessary for everyone on a construction
site to be trained in safety awareness and
accident prevention. Employers who abide
by the law in training their employees on
workplace hazard recognition, elimination
and prevention while others employers do
not is like allowing some drivers to drive
sober while allowing others to drive under
the influence, knowing that the actions of
those under the influence could endanger
the lives of the sober drivers.
This research, in the interest of having
a safe, injury-free work environment
for construction workers, recommends
that Vanderbilt University require any
contractor bidding on their work to certify that all employees who will be sent to
Vanderbilt have at least OSHA 10 course
training. This research also recommends
that the state of Tennessee require anyone
working on a public construction site to
have at least OSHA 10 course training. 䡲
References
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2005).
National census of fatal occupational
injuries in 2005. Washington, DC: Author.
The Center to Protect Workers’ Rights.
(2004). Making OSHA inspections more
effective. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from www.cpwr
.com/pdfs/pubs/research_pubs/rweil.pdf.
Fessenbecker G. (1998). Project site
safety and security for construction contractors. Eugene, OR: Construction
Contracting Press.
Follmann F.T. (1978). The economics
of industrial health: history, theory and
practice. New York: Amacom Publishing.
Heberle D. (1998). Construction safety
manual. New York: McGraw-Hill
Hinze W.J. (1997). Construction safety. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall Inc.
Kachuba B.J. & Newman, A.M.
(1999). Why is this job killing me? New
York: Dell Publishing.
Massachusetts Secretary of State.
(2004). Chapter 306 of the Acts of 2004.
Salem, MA: Author. Retrieved March 19,
2007, from http://www.mass.gov/legis/
laws/seslaw04/s1040306.htm.
New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health. (2004). Is it
ever criminal? Rhode Island law on
criminal negligence includes workplaces.
New York: Author. Retrieved date
March 10, 2007, from http://www.ny
cosh.org/health_safety_rights/RICOSH
criminalert.htm.
OSHA. (2007). Students trained: Outreach training program. Washington, DC:
Author. Retrieved date, March 12, 2007,
from http://www.osha.gov/fso/ote/train
ing/outreach/training_program.html.
Tennessee Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (TOSHA). (2005).
Fall from an aerial lift. Nashville, TN:
Author. Retrieved Feb. 18, 2007, from
http://www.state.tn.us/labor-wfd/tosha_
invest6_2005.doc.
Appendix A
This is the questionnaire distributed.
1) How long have you worked in the
construction industry?
A. Less than 1 year
B. 1-2 years
C. 2-3 years
D. Over 3 years
2) What is your job classification?
A. Pre-apprentice
B. Apprentice
C. Journeyman
D. Other____________
3) What do you think is key in reducing construction site injuries?
A. Safety Awareness
B. Enforcement
C. Management/corporate
safety policy
D. Other____________
FIGURE 8 How long have you worked in
the construction industry?
4) Have you taken the OSHA 10
course?
Yes___ No___
5) How long did you work on a construction site before taking the course?
A. 1- 6 months
B. 6-12 months
C. 1- 3 years
D. Over four years
6) Did you have a workplace recordable injury before taking the course?
Yes___ No___
7) Did you have a workplace recordable injury after taking the OSHA 10
training course?
Yes___ No___
8) Did taking the course make you
more aware of your workplace hazards?
Yes___ No___
9) Did the course change your attitude
towards safety at work?
Yes___ No___
10) How much information in the
OSHA 10 course was new to you?
A. All of it
B. Most of it
C. Some of it
D. Not much
FIGURE 9 What is your classification?
11) Is there a situation where the knowledge you gained from the OSHA 10 training course helped you prevent a possible
accident (e.g., you stand on a ladder differently, you reported improper electrical connections, you told someone their ladder
was not the appropriate one, etc.)?
Yes___ No___
If yes, please explain.
12) Is the course relevant to the present-day hazards of your workplace?
Yes___ No___
13) On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10
being the highest, how would you rank
the OSHA 10 training you had?
1___ 2___ 3___ 4___ 5___
6___ 7___ 8___ 9___ 10___
14) Do you think completion of the
OSHA 10 training course should be
required for construction workers to be
allowed on a construction site?
Yes___ No___
Any additional comments about your
experience with the OSHA 10?
Blueprints 17
NIOSH FACE Report: Student Injures Leg while
Working as Part of a Cooperative Work Experience
Editor’s Note: The following article is based
on a Facility Assessment and Control Evaluation
(FACE) report of interest to SH&E professionals
in the construction industry. This article is based
on Massachusetts Case Report 04-MA-2NF,
which was published March 2, 2007.
n early January 2004, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health
(MDPH) was notified by OSHA
through the 24-hour Occupational Fatality
Hotline that a 17-year-old student had
severely injured his right leg while working at a steel erection company. MDPH
initiated an investigation of the incident.
Two MDPH representatives visited the
steel erection company office and the student’s school.
The injured student was attending a
regional vocational technical high school
and was enrolled in the facilities management shop. This shop was designed to
prepare students to manage the daily
maintenance of businesses or institutional
facilities. The shop consisted of training
in eight areas: carpentry, plumbing, electrical, welding, metal fabrication, painting, landscaping, and estimating and
scheduling. The shop program was certified by the American Welding Society.
At the time of the incident, the steel
erection company had been in business for
10 years and had approximately 28
employees. Two of these employees,
including the injured student, were participating in the Cooperative Work Experience
Program and attended the same local
regional vocational technical high school.
The company stated that it had been
accepting Cooperative Work Experience
students from this school for the past 5
years and that it previously had hired some
of these students after graduation as fulltime employees. The company provided
both classroom and on-the-job safety training to all employees. Both Cooperative
Work Experience students had the required
cooperative employment permits.
I
Investigation
The two students had been working with
the steel erection company for approximately 1 month before the incident. The
steel erection company was contracted to
erect the steel portion of a new structure.
The two students were working on this
18 Vol. 7 • No. 1
project at the time of the incident. The
company owner reported that the students’ tasks included bolting sections of
steel together and performing nonstructural welds. The company owner also
reported that the students were not
allowed to perform many specific tasks.
These prohibited tasks included driving
vehicles, working at heights over 30 ft,
operating man lifts and any crane work.
A load of steel, which included the
I-beam involved in the incident, had been
delivered to the construction site 2 weeks
before the incident. The I-beam was 37 ft
long, 24 in. deep and weighed approximately 3,700 lb. Upon delivery to the construction site, it was unloaded from the
delivery truck by a crane and placed onto
pieces of 4-in. by 4-in. oak blocking to
keep the beam off the ground. Due to an
extended period of cold weather, the construction site ground was frozen at the time
the I-beam was delivered. Once delivered,
the I-beam was not moved during the 2
weeks leading up to incident.
For several days before and on the day
of the incident, the weather had been
warmer. The construction site ground had
become muddy; on the day of the incident,
it had started to rain. The mud and rain
might have created an unstable ground surface, contributing to the beam’s movement.
At the time of the incident, approximately
28 workers were on site including the two
Cooperative Work Experience students and
a site foreman.
The injured student had been working
with the site foreman. The steel erection
company owner reported that immediately before the incident, the injured student
had been waiting for the site foreman,
who was engaged in setting up a crane, to
assign the next task. The injured student
had been standing alone next to the steel
I-beam involved in the incident while
waiting. The I-beam suddenly overturned
off of the 4-in. by 4-in. oak blocking and
landed on the student’s lower right leg,
crushing the leg and pinning the student
to the ground. Co-workers immediately
used the on-site crane to lift the steel Ibeam off the injured student. The victim
then was transported, via ambulance, to a
local hospital. The injured student’s lower
right leg sustained multiple fractures.
Although the injured student had not
been assisting with the crane operation on
the day of the incident, it had been reported that both of the Cooperative Work
Experience students previously had
assisted with operating the crane on this
site. The task of assisting in the operating
a crane is prohibited under federal Child
Labor Laws (CLLs) for individuals under
age 18. There are no exemptions to this
prohibition for students in Cooperative
Work Experience programs.
Recommendations/Discussion
Recommendation #1
Companies that employ Cooperative
Work Experience students should ensure
that these students are not performing
tasks prohibited by the CLLs and that
their worksites are in compliance with
OSHA regulations.
•Discussion: In this case, on the day of
the incident, the injured student was not
helping with the crane operation. However,
it had been reported that in the past the
injured student had helped with this task,
which is prohibited under the CLLs,
Hazardous Order (HO) 7. HO 7 states that
occupations involved in the operation of
power-driven hoisting apparatus, which
include cranes, are prohibited for any
worker under age 18. More specifically, the
law prohibits workers less than age 18
from “assisting in the operation of a crane,
derrick or hoist performed by crane hookers, crane chasers, hookers-on, riggers, rigger helpers and like occupations.”
The Massachusetts CLLs also prohibit
workers under age 18 from working with
cranes. Specifically the state CLLs mandate in Chapter 149, Section 62, that “no
person shall employ a minor under 18 or
permit him to work in the operation or
management of hoisting machines.” In
addition, to help ensure the safety of
these students and the safety of all
employees, companies should always
ensure that their work locations, at a minimum, meet safety and health standards
set by OSHA.
Recommendation #2
Schools that have Cooperative Work
Experience programs should educate companies to which students are assigned, stu-
dents, and parents about the CLLs, especially the HOs.
•Discussion: Schools should ensure
that individuals involved in Cooperative
Work Experience programs are familiar
with the CLLs, especially the HOs.
Schools should, at a minimum, provide
the companies to which students are
assigned and the students’ parents materials about the CLLs and HOs.
Schools should provide classroom training to students about the CLLs, as well as
their health and safety rights and responsibilities on the job. In placements that
potentially involve tasks or occupations
prohibited for students, school personnel
should review the child labor laws with the
employer as part of the placement process.
Employers should in turn educate employees, particularly those involved in supervising students, about the CLLs.
Reference and educational materials on
the federal and Massachusetts CLLs and
HOs can be obtained by contacting the
Massachusetts Attorney General Office,
Fair Labor and Business Practices Division, at (617) 727-2200; the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division at
www.dol.gov/esa/whd; or the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Teens at
Work: Injury Surveillance and Prevention
Project at (617) 624-5632. In addition, if
schools, companies and parents do not
fully understand which types of work are
prohibited for student workers under age
18, they should contact any of the abovementioned government agencies.
Recommendation #3
Schools that have Cooperative Work
Experience programs should research
companies to which students have been
assigned to learn whether these companies have been cited for violating OSHA
regulations in the past.
•Discussion: Cooperative Work
Experience programs provide students
with important opportunities to learn
technical skills and introduce these students to the work environment. Learning
about occupational safety and health is a
crucial component of work preparation.
This knowledge will not only help ensure
that students are safe while on Cooperative Work Experience worksites but also
will help students develop safe work
skills for the future.
Schools should ensure that companies
involved in Cooperative Work Experience
placements have knowledge about OSHA
regulations and have in the past not been
cited by OSHA for violating these regulations. This could be accomplished by
asking the company about their knowledge of OSHA and searching the OSHA
website for recent inspection data for specific companies. OSHA information,
regulations, inspection data search, and
other occupational safety and health
information can be found at www.osha
.gov. In addition, schools
should provide students
NIOSH FACE Reports
with training about the
OSHA standards.
The goal of FACE is to prevent fatal work injuries
by studying the work environment, the worker, the task
Recommendation #4
and tools the worker was using, the energy exchange
Schools that have Coresulting in fatal injury, and the role of management in
operative Work Experience
controlling how these factors interact. FACE gathers
programs should routinely
information from multiple sources that may include
visit companies and workinterviews of employers, workers, and other investigasites to which students
tors; examination of the fatality site and related equiphave been assigned.
ment; and review of OSHA, police and medical
•Discussion: To help
examiner reports, employer safety procedures and trainensure that students are not
ing plans. The program does not seek to determine fault
going to be placed in hazor place blame on companies or individual workers.
ardous situations, schools
Findings are summarized in investigation reports that
should routinely meet with
include recommendations for preventing similar events.
companies and visit workAll names and other identifiers are removed from FACE
site locations to which
reports and other data to protect the confidentiality of
Cooperative Work Experithose who participate in the program.
ence students have been
For more information, visit the CDC/NIOSH FACE
assigned. In this case, the
website at www.cdc.gov/niosh/face/In-house.
program coordinator had
not visited the construction
site where the student sustained the
injury. The company owner also reported
that he had never met the school’s program coordinator during the 5 years the
company has been accepting Cooperative
Work Experience students.
Recommendation #5
Schools that have Cooperative Work
Experience programs should routinely
meet with students to discuss tasks they
have been performing while enrolled in
the program.
•Discussion: Schools should regularly
meet with Cooperative Work Experience
students throughout the students’ placement to help ensure that the tasks students
are performing are permitted by the CLLs
and in compliance with OSHA regulations.
Schools should take immediate action if
any of the tasks students describe could be
in violation of the CLLs and/or not in compliance with OSHA regulations. In addition to training students about the CLLs
and OSHA regulations, schools can help
students identify possible hazards while
employed at Cooperative Work Experience
worksites by ensuring that their vocational
shops, at a minimum, are in compliance
with OSHA’s regulations and that students
are not performing tasks prohibited by the
CLLs. This will enable students to become
accustomed to completing tasks safely. 䡲
References
Code of Massachusetts Regulations.
Program Approval Criteria: Vocational
Technical Education. 603 CMR 4.03.
International Labor Organization.
(1998). Encyclopaedia of occupational
health and safety (4th ed.), Vol. 3.
Geneva, Switzerland: ILO.
Massachusetts General Laws. Title
XXI, Labor and Industries, Chapter 149:
Labor and Industries, Section 62—
Minors Under Eighteen.
OSHA. Materials handling, storage,
use and disposal. 29 CFR 1926.250.
Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Labor. Child labor
requirements in nonagricultural occupations under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
WH-1330 and Child Labor Bulletin No.
101. Washington, DC: Author, Employment Standards Administration, Wage
and Hour Division.
Blueprints 19
ANSI/ASSE A10.40-2007
continued from page 6
construction workers. It is noted that
implementing this standard can help
reduce the risk of musculoskeletal problems, but may not eliminate them due to
the complex etiology of musculoskeletal
problems and nonoccupational risk factors. Note also that the mere presence of
occupational risk factors may not constitute a problem.
In addition, it is noted that the standard
is not intended to be and should not be
used by governmental authorities in any
enforcement procedures or as a basis for
enforceable standards. The committee
understands that there is not complete
agreement about the causes and solutions to
musculoskeletal problems in construction.
1.3 Modifications and Exemptions.
In cases of practical difficulty, infeasibility, new developments, and/or unnecessary
hardship, exceptions may be made to the
literal requirements of this standard, but
only when it is clearly evident that equivalent protection is thereby assured.
A10.40-2007 will be published and
available for purchase before the end of
this year.
Table of Contents
1.
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.
3.
Scope and Purpose
Scope
Purpose
Modifications and Exemptions
Definitions
Identification of Hazardous
Tasks
4.
Identification of Potential
Solutions
5.
Implementation and Evaluation
of Solutions
6.
Training
7.
Employee Participation
8.
Injury Management Program
Appendices:
A - Risk Assessment Guidance
B - Examples of Potential Solutions
for Reduction of Musculoskeletal
Problems in Construction
C - Materials Handling Checklist
D - Construction Musculoskeletal
Problem Reduction Checklist
E - Return to Work Checklist
F - References/Resources
G - Risk Factor Discussion
H - Non-Occupational Risk Factors
Associated with Work-Related
Musculoskeletal Disorders
(MSDs). 䡲
Reactions to
OSHRC’s Decision
continued from page 4
4) Participants in the second conference will include the compliance officer
who conducted the inspection, the compliance officer’s manager (if requested by
any of the parties), an employer representative and an employee representative (if
reasonably available).
*The category of “correcting employers,” as previously set out in OR-OSHA
Employee Safety Recognition
continued from page 11
tribution. For example, an employee
noticed piping being placed in a pipe rack
without all braces tightened. Work was
stopped and the issue corrected. The
employee was recognized with an on-thespot safety award.
Fifth, S&B never cancels a planned
celebration in the event of an injury. In
such rare cases, the event goes on as
scheduled and is one of praise of past
accomplishments. The company explains
how the recent injury could have been
prevented and renews the commitment to
zero injuries.
Sixth, in the S&B zero-injury culture,
a “no fault, no penalty” approach is used
in investigating any near-miss, accident,
incident or injury. With this approach,
employees have no “inadvertently company-sponsored” reason not to report a nearhit, accident, incident or injury. The
company conducts zero-fault investigations to find lessons to be learned, and
guidelines, is not included herein because
such employers are covered under the
existing employer categories set out in
Paragraphs B(2), (3) and (4) above. To
the extent that circumstances arise involving specialized subcontractors who are
hired specifically to correct hazardous
conditions, it is noted that such subcontractors are obligated to ensure that their
employees work in a safe manner while
also effectively abating hazards to which
employees of other employers may be
exposed. 䡲
these are shared to ensure that the event
does not recur. Although accidents are not
a welcomed occurrence, each is used as a
proving ground to ensure that the faultfree investigation and learning mechanism are working properly. Seen in action
proves to the employees that they have
nothing to fear in reporting. S&B literally
tries to remove any reason for an employee not to report.
Seventh, S&B does not use incentive
pay for safety accomplishments because
these can quickly become a form of entitlement and, consequently, can have little,
if any, value.
S&B Stats
Since 1993, S&B has experienced only
three lost-time injuries. Ten of the past 15
years have been worked with no lost-time
injuries. During this period, the company
has logged more than 75 million workhours. Additionally, S&B has averaged an
OSHA recordable rate of 0.30 for the past
10 years (Figures 1 and 2, pg. 11) 䡲
American Society of Safety Engineers
Construction Practice Specialty
1800 East Oakton Street
Des Plaines, Illinois 60018-2187
PRESORT STD
US POSTAGE
PAID
PERMIT NO. 401
DES PLAINES, IL