OSHA's Top Ten
The following are the standards that were most frequently cited by Federal OSHA for tree service businesses (SIC 0783) during the fiscal year from October ’07 through September ’08. In all, Federal OSHA conducted 88 inspections of tree care establishments, issued 241 citations and proposed almost $180,000 in penalties for that period. These statistics do not include data from the 22 States that administer their own approved OSHA State plan.
Below are the top ten most frequently issued citations, listed in descending order of frequency, with a brief, plain-English explanation of the likeliest reasons for the citation(s):
1910.266 – Logging Standard
Unfortunately in fiscal ’08 there were seven inspections, resulting in 36 citations, which were enforced by OSHA’s use of the Logging Standard. TCIA generally urges its members to contest (dispute) 1910.266 citations. Promulgated in 1996 without the tree care industry’s knowledge and input, the Logging Standard contains several requirements that conflict with accepted safe work practices for arboriculture.
1910.132 - Personal Protective Equipment, General Requirements
This section says that is the employer’s responsibility to assess the hazards of the workplace, complete a written certification of the assessment, and provide appropriate PPE as well as training in its use and care to all affected employees. The written certification of hazard assessment trips up many employers.
1910.67 - Vehicle-Mounted Elevating/Rotating Work Platforms
This standard covers aerial lift operation, inspection and maintenance. It’s one of the oldest OSHA standards on the books, incorporating ANSI A92 by reference. The most frequent violation results from the operator failing to wear fall protection in the bucket.
5(A)(1) - General Duty Clause
The number refers to a section of OSH Act that admonishes the employer to maintain a workplace free of recognized hazards. OSHA typically invokes the General Duty Clause when they cannot find an OSHA standard that applies to an unsafe condition. Frequently this is where the ANSI Z133 Standard - which describes many situations that OSHA standards do not - can be referenced by OSHA. Yes, occasionally an industry consensus standard can carry the force of law!
1910.1200 – Hazard Communications
The purpose of this rule, as it is applied to the typical tree care company, is to ensure that the hazards of all chemicals used in the workplace are evaluated and that information concerning their hazards is transmitted to employers and employees through a hazard communication program. Gasoline and pesticides used in arborist operations frequently trigger the need to comply with this regulation.
1910.133 - Eye & Face Protection
The likely cause for such a citation is an employee who failed to use, or wasn’t provided with, protective eyewear. See also 1910.135 below. Keep in mind that OSHA now considers each infraction of PPE requirements on a work site to be separately punishable. In other words, your fine is multiplied by the number of non-compliant employees on site during the inspection. The burden falls to the employer unless he/she can demonstrate: 1) there is a policy for PPE use, 2) there is training to teach the policy, and 3) there is enforcement to back up the policy. This applies generally to PPE.
1910.135 - Occupational Head Protection
This citation stems from the employee who fails to wear his hardhat and gets caught.
1910.180 - Crawler locomotive and truck cranes
The general industry crane standard is over 30 years old. The likeliest explanation of its use against a tree care operation stems from hoisting a climber into position using the crane. The OSHA standard does not allow this practice under any circumstance other than if the worker is inside a man-basket. It disagrees with the ANSI Z133 Standard on this point. Furthermore, the employer cannot claim Z133 compliance as a defense against a 1910.180 citation, but he/she can and should cite Z133 as the procedure that was followed after determining that all other methods of tree access were either infeasible and/or less safe. A “greater hazard” defense must be well documented to be successful in avoiding a citation.
1910.147 - The control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout)
This standard is typically thought of in the context of electrical energy but it can be applied to any source of potentially harmful energy, including electrical, mechanical, thermal and chemical. Common examples of hazard situations in tree care include maintenance on a brush chipper when the disc/drum has not been “locked” in position and the ignitions keys removed, or work under a hoisted dump bed that has not been blocked to prevent sudden collapse.
1910.178 – Powered industrial trucks
This standard is intended to apply to forklifts, other than rough-terrain equipment, as well as platform lifts. TCIA’s staff has no direct or indirect experience with companies that have been cited under this standard; much less any reason to believe that the type of equipment covered is receiving more than minor or infrequent use in tree care.
TCIA members should contact the Association if they feel they have been improperly cited by OSHA. For companies that implement a comprehensive safety program with management commitment, employee involvement, constant evaluation and regular refinement, OSHA compliance virtually takes care of itself. Contact TCIA to learn how your company can improve its safety program.
|
