Occupational safety and health standards board



Download 107.21 Kb.
Page1/3
Date conversion02.06.2018
Size107.21 Kb.
  1   2   3


STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ARNOLD SCHWARZENNEGER, Governor



OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY

AND HEALTH STANDARDS BOARD

2520 Venture Oaks, Suite 350

Sacramento, CA 95833

(916) 274-5721

FAX (916) 274-5743



www.dir.ca.gov/oshsb


FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS
CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
TITLE 8: Chapter 4, Subchapter 4, Article 29, Section 1716.2

of the Construction Safety Orders (CSO)



Proposed Vertical Standard – Fall Protection for Residential-Type Framing Activities




MODIFICATIONS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RESULTING FROM
THE 45-DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

There are no modifications to the information contained in the initial statement of reasons except for the following substantive and non-substantive modifications that are the result of public comments and/or board staff evaluation.

Section 1716.2(d), Stabilization of Structures.

Section 1716.2(d), as originally proposed, would have required that top plates, joists, rafters, trusses, beams or other structural members be “braced, supported or secured” before employees would be permitted to work from or walk on them. Due to comments received from the public, this section is proposed to be modified to clarify that top plates, joists, rafters, trusses, beams or other structural members shall be securely braced and supported. The purpose and necessity of this modification is to clarify installation requirements to prescribe stable and secure footing for employees.

Section 1716.2(f), Work on Floor Joists, subsection (2)

This subsection, as originally proposed, provided that employees would be considered protected from falls between installed floor joists on center spacing not exceeding 24 inches when more than 6 feet from an unprotected side or edge. It is proposed to modify this subsection by deleting part of the last sentence: “when more than 6 feet from an unprotected side or edge” as work within 6 feet from the unprotected side or edge is addressed in subsection (f)(3). The purpose and necessity of this modification is to clarify leading edge protection requirements by eliminating duplicative standards.


Section 1716.2(j), Scaffolding, subsection (3)

This subsection, as originally proposed, prescribed requirements for the use of scaffolding as a means of edge protection. Subsection (j)(3)(A), as originally proposed, prescribed standards applicable to all types of scaffolding when used for edge protection. Subsection (j)(3)(B), as originally proposed, prescribed additional standards applicable to metal frame scaffolds when used to provide edge protection. A modification is proposed, based on public comment, to clarify requirements by reformatting the original subsection (j)(3) into two subsections.


The contents of original subsections (j)(3)(A) and (A)(1) are proposed to be reformatted into new subsection (j)(3) which would contain standards applicable to all types of scaffolding when used as an edge protection platform.

The contents of original subsection (j)(3)(B) are proposed to be renumbered to new subsection (j)(4) and modified to clarify additional standards specifically applicable to metal frame scaffolds when they are used as an edge protection platform. The contents of original subsection (j)(3)(A)(2) are also proposed to be relocated to (j)(4)(C) as discussed below.

The purpose of the reformatting and modification of subsection (j)(3)(A) and (B) into two subsections (j)(3) and (j)(4) is to enhance employee safety in situations where an edge protection platform may be necessary for fall protection by clarifying requirements for scaffolds when used as edge protection platforms. The necessity for these modifications is to improve compliance by clarifying requirements and eliminating duplication.

Standard guardrails for scaffolds are already prescribed by section 1621 for all scaffolds with fall heights 7-1/2 feet or higher; however, when used as an edge protection platform, the guardrail for ground assembled metal frame scaffolds may, in some cases, not be high enough to provide adequate fall protection at the leading edge when in close proximity to the eaves. It is therefore necessary to prescribe the minimum guardrail height above the eaves in those cases where the metal frame scaffold platform may be too narrow to prevent or stop a fall. Original subsection (j)(3)(A)(2) required guard railings to extend not less than 42 inches vertically above the eaves if the outboard edge of the platform extends less than 12 inches horizontally beyond the eaves. Public comments indicated that the original subsection (j)(3)(A)(2) is only applicable to metal frame scaffolds being used for edge protection platforms. This is due to differences in construction and installation between bracket scaffolds and metal frame scaffolds; i.e., bracket scaffold distances from the top plate (horizontal and vertical) are fixed whereas metal frame scaffolds are built-up from the ground thus guardrail and platform distances from the top plate and eaves are variable. Therefore, it is proposed to relocate the guardrail height requirement of (j)(3)(A)(2) to new subsection (j)(4)(C) to clarify that it applies only to metal frame scaffolds. The necessity for this modification is to assure that when metal frame scaffolds are used as an edge protection platform, adequate edge protection is provided by prescribing that the minimum guard rail height be measured from the eave when the horizontal distance of the guard rail from the eave is less than 12 inches.

Original subsection (j)(3)(B)(5) provided that the outboard edge of the platform should extend not less than 24 inches horizontally beyond the eaves; however, this requirement overlaps and conflicts with new subsection (j)(4)(C). A modification is proposed to clarify guardrail and platform parameters for metal frame scaffolds when they are used as an edge protection platform by deleting originally proposed (j)(3)(B)(5) which overlaps and conflicts with new subsection (j)(4)(C). The necessity for this modification is to eliminate conflicting requirements.
Section 1716.2(k), Training

This section, as originally proposed, prescribed training requirements for employees who may be exposed to fall hazards. A modification is proposed, as a result of public comment, to delete “who may be” from the provision. The purpose and necessity of this modification is to clarify training requirements by eliminating confusing and ambiguous language.





  1   2   3


The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2017
send message

    Main page