As a trainer and consultant I rarely tell them that something is or isn’t compliant (unless the answer is obvious) because the questioners may have omitted a key piece of information needed to make that determination . Instead I often try to provide them with a process for determining the answer on their own.

A first step in this process often involves understanding the intent of the OSHA standard they are trying to comply with. For example. the intent of the confined space standard (29 CFR 1910.146) is to implement the, “. . . requirements for practices and procedures to protect employees in general industry from the hazards of entry into permit-required confined spaces.” So if a question comes up regarding the proper intervals for air monitoring or whether two confined space entrants can be attached to the same retrieval line, I try to figure out whether the practice being described meets the intent of the standard. For excavation and fall protection, the intent of these standards are also quite clear. In an excavation, workers cannot be crushed, drowned, or asphyxiated. Likewise for fall protection, workers must be protected from slips, trips and falls to lower levels. 

Almost everyone who understands the basic concepts of safety realizes that blind adherance to the wording of a standard can, in some cases, create additional hazards that were not foreseen by those who actually wrote the standard. In these cases the employer is still obligated to develop the policies and procedures needed to accomplish the task while fulfilling the intent of the standard.

The reason for this is quite simple. Specifically, the General Duty clause requires employers to identify all job-related hazards and take corrective measures, and OSHA generally allows employers some degree of flexibility in developing the means and methods needed to protect workers.

In our experience, this generally requires an understanding of the intent of standard. If you meet this intent using sound safety practices you will, most likely, be safe and compliant.

An OSHA citation in the making.

Some group members pointed out that other government standards such as the USACE’s EM-385-1-1 (used on many government projects) require users to tie-off if the lift was equipped with anchor points. In a few months all the scissors lifts used on these projects must have anchor points and workers will be required to use them.

But then the discussion turned to the question of whether requiring fall restraint in a lift is a best safety practice.

One argument for tethering workers was that there’s a tendency for workers to climb the guardrails and a fall restraint system would keep the worker’s feet on the platform (which is required by OSHA). This seems to make sense until you consider that a worker who’s willing to violate rules by climbing the guardrails is probably also going to violate the rule that prohibits them from unclipping their fall restraint system.

It would seem that the root cause of the hazard in this situation is workers who aren’t following the “don’t climb the guardrails” rule. In this case wouldn’t it make sense to address this issue first? After all, if workers are not following safety rules that needs to be the focus of your corrective measures instead of adding another layer of rules that may or may not be followed.

Another important source of guidance to answer this question would be the manufacturers. Their manuals always seem to recommend, but not require, fall protection and the newer lifts all seem to include anchor points. Wouldn’t it be prudent to follow these recommendations? Maybe yes, but maybe no.

On one manufacturer’s web site you can see users connect a 6-foot lanyard to an anchor point located on the lift’s mid-rail. This is not a restraint system. It would allow the worker to potentially over the side of the lift and generate a considerable sideways force as the system arrested the worker. On a fully extended lift, I would suspect that the lift would then tip. You could make the argument that equipping workers in this fashion would actually encourage them to climb the guardrails since they might feel (falsely) that the fall arrest system will protect them. 

Some commentors made the argument that if you don’t comply with all the manufacturer’s recommendations you might to exposing yourself to liability, but employers are exposed to liability every business day and simply creating a policy based on a recommendation may serve the cause of compliance, but not necessarliy advance the cause of safety.

As the discussion evolved people seemed to associate themselves into safety or compliance camps.

Here’s the text of one of the responses that I posted.

Seems to me like we sort of have two different trains of thought being expressed here. One group is talking about compliance (with USACE regs and manufacturer recommendations) and the other (I guess I’m in that camp) is talking more about safety.

I understand the essential role that rules play in safety and if the fall protection requirements on the site are spelled out, then the discussion is over.

But I work in the safety field and while when dealing with gray areas (OSHA doesn’t require it, USACE does on some lifts, manfacturer recommends it), I am not a proponent of simply applying the most stringent interpretation of the most stringent rules to avoid having to analyze what’s really going on.

If I were being paid to answer this question for a client I would do so by applying the basic safety processes we all use.

1) Break the work into steps
2) Analyze each step (who, when, where, what tools/cords/materials, nearby work activities, etc.)
3) ID the hazards in each step
4) Apply the heirarchy of controls to manage the hazards.

I don’t know what the end result of this would be. Might be a restraint system, or a vertical lifeline, or nothing besides the guardrails. It could be each at various stages of the job. Who knows until you do the analysis?

As in medicine, safety should involve both diagnostics and therapuetics.

I’m sure that this discussion will continue but I think the most important consideration needs to be on the process through which we arrive at a means of addressing hazards rather than simply requiring this or that without truly thinking through the consequences.