http://www.orosha.org/pdf/notices/proposed2011/propchgs_conf_sp.pdf

As a company with some experience in this area, we decided to offer comments, which can be found here:

http://www.d2000safety.com/shop/images/OROSHA_comments.pdf

In the next few days I plan to post a summary of the proposed changes. I’ll also be presenting this information during a confined space safety presentation I’m planning to do at the Pulp and Paper conference in Portland on November 29th.

A key point in the article was the problem with existing safety standards. The  writer, Tiffany Hsu,  asserted that: “Watchdog groups say a hodgepodge of state and federal renewable energy safety standards haven’t kept up with the growth of the industry. Some were adapted from other industries and don’t specifically cover wind and solar projects, while others are guidelines rather than mandatory regulations. Many are old and are just now being updated.”

As a company that spends a fair amount of time training wind turbine workers, I wasn’t quite sure what was meant about this “hodgepodge” of regulations. It would seem that OSHA has pretty well spelled out the minimal requirements for working on these structures. In the areas of all protection, confined space entry and hazardous energy control (which are the main hazards workers face), the safety requirements are simple and hard to misinterpret.

If workers are exposed to fall hazards, then the employer has to identify these hazards, develop the means and methods for controlling these hazards and train and equip workers. If the workers will be entering enclosed areas, then again the employer is obligated to identify the hazards and develop the means and methods for controlling or eliminating them. Lockout/tagout has the same requirements.

As far as being adapted from other industries, solar and wind are regulated by OSHA’s 1910.269 “Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution.” These standards, it would seem, provide pretty specific guidelines for identifying and controlling hazards. And I think if you looked back at accidents that have occurred on wind farms or solar arrays, my guess is that the root cause of these accidents was due to an employer violating on or more of these standards. 

Accidents mentioned in the article include: “Technicians have fallen hundreds of feet; others have been crushed by parts or trapped in twisting machinery. Pilots in small planes have crashed into the towers. Electrical explosions last year left a worker in Illinois with third-degree burns and two others in San Diego County with similar injuries.”

Again, bad pilots notwithstanding, each of these accidents are addressed by specific provisions of the OSHA codes. Add to that OSHA’s General Duty Clause and it’s hard to see where additional regulations are needed.

If there is an area of confusion it might be that many employers haven’t carefully thought through their emergency action plans but that is true in a wide variety of industries, not just solar and wind.

While it’s easy to think that a whole new host of regulations are needed for the supposedly “new” industry, it’s my sense that employers simply need to go back and revisit their current obligations under the existing standards.

As a company we have always felt that making these investments was a great way to give back to our safety industry and support the hard work of the associations which invest so much time and energy to provide these resources to the public.

A list of these seminars can be found on our website including three presentations that are currently scheduled for the fall.

These include:

Does this worker need a permit?

One area of concern for many employers relates to the safety requirements needed when an employee reaches into a permit-required confined space to perform a low-hazard job task such as steam cleaning or collecting a sample.

Has the employee made a confined space entry? Is a permit needed? What exactly are the requirements?

The OSHA regulations don’t address this specific situation. The term ‘entry‘ as defined in 29 CFR 1910.146 tells us that an entry is, “the action by which a person passes through an opening into a permit-required confined space.” It goes on to state that, “entry includes ensuing work activities in that space and is considered to have occurred as soon as any part of the entrant’s body breaks the plane of an opening into the space.”

So this definition implies that any breaking of the confined space plane by any part of the body constitutes an entry, and this is the concept that is reinforced in all our confined space classes. Specifically, attendants are prohibited from reaching into the space for any reason. However, when the worker only reaches into the space without the need to go in, the intent of the standard can be hard to assess.

When dealing with partial entry from a safety standpoint we would need to identify hazards that would arise from reaching into the space. We would also need to look at the possible hazards of unintentional entry such as a worker slipping and accidently falling into a space. Based on this we would use the heirarchy of controls to control or eliminate the possible hazards.

Once we had managed the safety aspects we would address the compliance issues. These are addressed in OSHA’s letter of interpretation dated October 18, 1995.

Essentially this letter looked at the size of the permit space opening and placed them into two categories: 1) openings that are large enough for the worker to enter the space and 2) those which are too small (e.g., inspection portals) for the employee to enter but large enough for the employee’s arm to enter.

We’ll look at each of these situations individually.

Case 1: A confined space opening that is large enough for the worker to enter.

When a worker breaks the plane in this case, then a permit is required, regardless of the intent to fully enter. The letter does state that if the act of reaching in does not expose the worker to hazards, then the violation would be considered de minimis. (A de minimis violation is one in which a standard is violated, but the violation has no direct or immediate relationship to employee safety or health. These violations are documented but no citations are issued.) Examples of these situations include:

1. An entrant reaches through the opening of a horizontal PRCS, which is so classified only because it contains exposed live electrical parts ten feet from the opening.

2. An entrant put his head through the opening of an overhead PRCS, which is so classified only because it contains unguarded rotating parts ten feet from the opening.

In either case the worker has committed a violation of the rules but was not exposed to a hazard, hence a de minimis situation.

Case 2: A confined space opening that is not large enough for the worker to enter.

If a worker reaches into a space that isn’t large enough for the worker to enter, then OSHA says a permit is not required. Nonetheless, an employer is still obligated to identify and control any hazards associated with this activity.

One way that some employers have addressed workers reaching into spaces that are large enough to enter (Case 1) is by installing temporary grid or guards across an opening. These reduce the size of the opening so that it now no longer big enough for a worker to enter, but the worker can still reach in.

One might also assume that use of a fall or travel restraint system that prevents the worker from entering the space would also meet the intent of the standard. Reclassification of the space may also be a possibility.

In any case, the most important goal should be to protect the worker from hazards and then develop the procedures needed to make sure this happens. Once workers are trained to follow these procedures and the procedures are enforced, the likelihood of accidents related to partial entry should no longer pose a concern.

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.

There are several classes of intrinsically safe equipment which have been tested and rated by Underwriter’s Laboratories (UL) and they are broken down into several categories depending on the type of flammable substance and its possible presence in the work areas.

The three classes of flammables are designated I, II, and III.

• Class I is for flammable gases/vapors or liquids.
• Class II is for combustible dusts, and
• Class III for ignitable fibers and flyings.

UL uses both Division and Zone methods, although the Division system seems to be more common.

Under both the Division & Zone systems, work areas are classified based on:

• The likelihood that the explosive gas atmosphere is present when the equipment is operating;
• The ignition-related properties of the explosive atmosphere;
• The maximum surface temperature of the equipment under normal operating conditions; and
• The protection method(s) used by the equipment to prevent ignition of the surrounding atmosphere.

Class I: Flammable Gases, Vapors or Liquids

These types of fuels are divided up based on their likelihood.

Division 1: This is where ignitable concentrations of flammable gases, vapors or liquids can exist all of the time or some of the time under normal operating conditions.

Division 2: This is where ignitable concentrations of flammable gases, vapors or liquids are not likely to exist under normal operating conditions.

Zones are defined as follows:

Zone 0: Where ignitable concentrations of flammable gases, vapors or liquids are present continuously or for long periods of time under normal operating conditions.

Zone 1: Where ignitable concentrations of flammable gases, vapors or liquids are likely to exist under normal operating conditions.

Zone 2: Where ignitable concentrations of flammable gases, vapors or liquids are not likely to exist under normal operating conditions.

Class II: Combustible Dusts

Division 1: Where ignitable concentrations of combustible dusts can exist all of the time or some of the time under normal operating conditions.

Division 2: Where ignitable concentrations of combustible dusts are not likely to exist under normal operating conditions.

Divisions 1 and 2 are also divided into groups E (metals – Division 1 only), F (coal), and G (grain)

Class III: Ignitable Fibers and Flyings

Class III Area Classification

Division 1: Where easily ignitable fibers or materials producing combustible flyings are handled, manufactured or used.

Division 2: Where easily ignitable fibers are stored or handled.

Once we have a sense of these terms we can see that a headlamp which is rated by the UL as being Class I, Division II would be appropriate to use in most confined space entries when the air is being monitored. If sufficient levels of a combustible gas were encountered and the alarm sounded, the headlamp should not pose an ignition risk while the entrants are evacuating the space. If we were entering a fuel tank under supplied air, then we would want a headlamp certified as being Class I, Division I.

If you have any questions about this, or any other aspect of confined space safety, please call us at 800-551-8763.

In addition to PPE use, exertion, time of day, and humidity, other factors that can increase your chances of a heat disorder include:

• Old age
• Lack of sleep
• Obesity
• Previous heatstroke
• Excessive alcohol ingestion (the previous day which causes dehydration).

Symptoms can include headache, nausea, dizziness, irritability, pain, fatigue, or confusion.

A basic safety rule is if you start to feel uncomfortable or stressed, take a break and rehydrate, preferably in the shade.

Remember that staying calm and cool is better than ending up in the hospital.

I usually respond by saying that if you complete the class you’ll receive a certificate and you’ll be awarded continuing education units (CEUs). But will that make you ‘certified’ in the normal sense of the word? Not really.

But when it comes to most types of safety or rescue training, the only entity that can certify someone as a competent person, a confined space entrant, a forklist operator, or a member of a rescue team is the employer. They are the ones who make sure you have been trained properly, have the right equipment and they are the ones who develop and enforce the company policies.

In addition, much of our training is site-specific, which means that we train to an employers specific work environments and procedures. Another employer may have a completely different set of hazards and control procedures that they need  their workers trained to. So receiving training in one work environment doesn’t mean that you’re competent in all work environments.

So with the exception of First Aid/CPR, HAZWOPER and a few other topics, there really aren’t independent agencies that run around and stamp a seal of approval on people who complete certain safety and rescue classes. And this is how it should be.

The way I look at it is, if OSHA shows up and you’re doing everything right, they don’t care if you have a wallet card or wall certificate that says you’ve been trained. And if you’re doing everything wrong, again, it doesn’t matter what classes you’ve taken. The point is that it’s always the employer’s responsibility to make sure that people are doing the job the right way, which means that they are following best practices, common sense and their location’s policies and procedures.

As training professionals, we help employers achieve these goals.