September

ãContrary to popular belief,ä said Debbie Austin of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, ãthe [fall protection] standard that the federal OSHA put out, is not the standard in effect here in Nevada.ä

Austin, a 20-year Nevada Occupational OSHA employee addressed a roomful of framing contractors and a handful of general contractors in August in light of potential changes to the fall protection guidelines for residential construction.

Austin provided everyone in attendance at the August Framing Contractors Association monthly meeting with a copy of an eight-page memorandum from the Department of Business & Industry Division of Industrial Relations Occupation Safety and Health Enforcement Section. The subject of the memo, dated August 29, 1996, was interim fall protection enforcement guidelines for residential construction.

ãThis document [memorandum] is exactly whatâs in effect here in Nevada,ä Austin said.

She told the group that Nevada OSHA was seeking to make modifications to the memorandum, which was originally developed through an industry focus group comprised of OSHA representatives and Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association, Framing Contractors Association and Roofing Contractors Association of Nevada members in 1996.

ãThis comes on the heels of some recent, serious accidents on jobsites of which many have involved the framing industry,ä noted Austin, ãPerhaps even more importantly another steadfast reason to take a second look at these fall protection regulations is for the simple fact that there are numerous, sophisticated fall protection systems available today that simply had yet to be invented in 1996.ä

Specifically, Austin said OSHA will be identifying certain fall protection systems to coordinate with specific phases of framing. Austin noted that Nevada OSHA utilizes current industry resources to help assist them in preparing new guidelines and in making judgment calls.

One of these resources includes the Wood Truss Council of Americaâs Building Component Safety Information BCSI 1-03 booklet, which is viewed as a guide to good practice for the handling, the installing and the bracing of metal plate connected wood trusses. This document was jointly produced by WTCA and the Truss Plate Institute. Austin advised FCA members to purchase one of these booklets at WTCAâs website at www.woodtruss.com.

During the course of the open forum luncheon Austin emphasized her agencies mission which is to keep employees safe by developing feasible regulations to prevent accidents.

As an aside Austin played to the crowd by acknowledging, ãWhen I first began with OSHA 20 years ago, there were indeed a few inspectors on staff that wanted badges and guns ö fortunately, they left and went to California OSHA. Today, however, members of our team strive very hard to work with industry, not against them to achieve optimal safety for our workers.ä

One item of concern, under the current guidelines is the lack of consistency from one framing contractor to another. ãIf we have one framing contractor out there putting up slide guards and another framing contractor building across the street who is not, then we have two framers who are not on the same page. In addition to the safety concerns this poses, this also creates an unfair advantage between the two framers. In that, the framer who is paying for materials and labor to install these slide guards, must integrate these figures into their bids to recoup these safety costs. Obviously, the framer who isnât following regulations and is cutting corners also more than likely has the ability to provide a lower bid because they are not concerned with these additional material and labor costs.ä

Austin reminded luncheon attendees to take advantage of OSHAâs Safety Consultation and Training Section or SCATS as a useful resource to addressing their individual companyâs safety goals.

The question was raised as to how soon framers could expect a recommendation for changes to the 1996 memorandum, and Austin noted such recommendations would be six to eight months done the road. Primarily, this is because Nevada OSHAâs Chief Administration Officer is well underway in preparing for the 2005 Legislative Session, Austin said.

One change Austin addressed and was confident it would be included in the proposed revisions fell under (k)(5). Currently under (k)(5) a verbal explanation and claim to infeasibility in utilizing one of the recommended fall protection measures has been sufficient. Austin said that OSHA is hoping to require a document in writing to describe the contractors infeasibility.

ãWe at OSHA, want to know that your safety people are doing their research. As you all know or should know, good fall protection is all about good pre-planning,ä said Austin.

In other agency news, Austin discussed staff demographics with luncheon attendees. Austin mentioned that the agency has a goal of having a minimum of 20 percent bilingual safety staff, and this will be an objective in hiring for a few vacant positions available. Austin said OSHA is not prepared to be adding new staff, but rather replacing staffers lost through attrition.

Austin answered in detail questions of every variety from the audience, and wrapped up the session with the promise to meet with framers soon regarding the proposed fall protection standards in an industry forum format.

Copies of the August 29, 1996 fall protection guidelines may be obtained and questions answered by contacting Austin, safety supervisor at 486-9037 or by e-mail at Austin.debbie@dol.gov.