|
Safety -
Safety News
|
|
Written by Barry Moreland
|
|
Tuesday, 17 January 2012 21:17 |
|
OSHA has recently completed phase 3 of their Standard Improvement Project, which involves identifying and revising standards that are confusing, outdated, duplicative or inconsistant in the construction industry. One of the many changes involves slings and shackles used for rigging activities.
Employers can no longer use the load capacity tables found in OSHA's construction standard, 1926.251, to establish working capacities of slings. The tables , originally based on ANSI B30.9-1971 criteria, are now considered to be obsolete.
The outdated tables are being replaced with a requirement that prohibits employers from loading slings in excess of the recommended safe working load as prescribed on permanently affixed identification markings.
To avoid potential OSHA compliance issues, you should check your inventory of rigging equipment and ensure that rated capacities are legible and permanently affixed. With use, the tags and markings can become detached or damaged. Employers are not only required to ensure that the slings retain their integrity, they are to replace tags that become detached or otherwise unreadable so the end user can safely apply the equipment within the rated capcity.
The rule applies to slings made from allow steel chain, wire rope, natural and synthetic materials as well as shackles and hooks. Adoption of these changes is slated for early 2012.
Section 1926.251 Rigging Equipment for Material Handling
(a) (General) (2) Employers must ensure that rigging equipment: (i) Has permanently affixed and legible markings as prescribed by the manufacturer that indicates the recommended safe working load; (ii) Not be loaded in excess of its recommended safe working load as prescribed on the identification marking by the manufacturer; and (iii) Not be used without affixed, legible identification markings, required by paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
|
|
Last Updated on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 21:54 |
|
|
Safety -
Safety News
|
|
Written by Barry Moreland
|
|
Wednesday, 23 November 2011 18:20 |
|
This rulemaking would make adjustments to the penalty rule to more effectively use Oregon OSHA’s existing penalty authority. Both nationally and at state levels, it has been suggested that Oregon OSHA penalties are not as effective as they might be in promoting health and safety in the workplace. The proposal grows not out of a desire to increase penalties but is instead an effort to develop a more effective approach to use penalties to encourage employers to comply with safety and health rules.
That is how OR-OSHA recently announced their proposed rulemaking to modify how penalty amounts are calculated. The proposal calls for 6 significant changes to their existing method of penalty assessment. The list below is taken from the original announcement and is condensed for this article. Full text at http://www.orosha.org/pdf/notices/proposed2011/div1penalties_ltr.pdf
1. Increasing the difference between small employer and large employer penalties.
-The change to increase the difference between small employer and large employer penalties is proposed as a way to better motivate larger employers. The current penalty structure may motivate the small employer but is unlikely to motivate the larger employer to the same degree.
|
|
Last Updated on Wednesday, 23 November 2011 19:24 |
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Safety -
Safety News
|
|
Written by Barry Moreland
|
|
Wednesday, 15 June 2011 21:20 |
|
Ask 10 people what fall protection means and you’re likely to get 10 different answers. For many in the construction industry, equipment is the first thing that comes to mind: personal fall-arrest systems, safety nets, or guardrails, for example.
Fall protection is more than just equipment. Fall protection is what you do to eliminate fall hazards and to prevent falls through employee training and documentation.
A contractor was recently visited by OR-OSHA who was interested in their fall protection program, specifically employee training. The employer had a fall protection program in their safety manual, a site specific fall protection plan and provided employee training records from tool box talks and completion of an OSHA 10 course.
Strangely, that was not enough for the inspector.
|
|
Last Updated on Wednesday, 15 June 2011 21:38 |
|
Read more...
|
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |