Standard Interpretations - (Archived) Table of Contents|
| Standard Number:||1926.451(h)(4); 1926.451(k)(10) ; 1910.66; 1926.451(a)(3); 1926.451(a)(7) ; 1910.28(a)(4)|
February 2, 1994
Mr. Richard Hill
1820 S. Choctaw Dr.
Baton Rouge, LA 70805
Dear Mr. Hill:
This is in response to your letter of December 28, 1993, in which you request a clarification of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) safety regulations for roof top rolling scaffolds.
As you point out in your letter, roof cars are neither defined nor specifically addressed in OSHA's existing regulations. However, this does not mean that the general rules and some two- point suspension rules do not apply to such systems. In discussing those rules, I will discuss your concerns in the same order that you present them in your letter.
Paragraph 1926.451(h)(4) does require outrigger beams to be securely fastened or anchored, however, this rule only applies to mason's adjustable multiplepoint suspension scaffolds. The rule does not apply to rolling roof rigs.
Paragraph 1926.451(k)(10) does reference the requirements of ANSI A120, however, the rule applies only to single-point adjustable suspension scaffolds. Most rolling roof rigs are two-point systems and the referenced ANSI rule could not be applied to them without using the general duty clause (Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.) As you know, that clause requires each employer to furnish employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious harm.
With regard to possible conflict between 1926.451 and 1910.66, please be advised that the June 30, 1993, Federal Register notice (58 FR 35076) does not list 1910.66 as a standard to be applied to construction activities. Therefore, no conflict can exist. Similarly, the construction standards do not apply to general industry activities.
Your concerns about the structural adequacy of the outrigger beams, improper counterweights, and carriages are presently addressed by 1926.451(a)(3) and (a)(7) for construction scaffolds, and by 1910.28(a)(4) for general industry scaffolds.
If you have further questions, please contact me or Mr. Dale Cavanaugh of my staff at (202) 219-8136.
Roy F. Gurnham, P.E., J.D.
Office of Construction and Maritime
December 28, 1993
Mr. Roy Gurnham
U.S. Dept. Of Labor
Construction and Maritime
Rm. N. 3610
200 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
Fax: (202) 219-9187
Dear Mr. Gurnham,
I would appreciate an interpretation of an outrigger beam, rolling outrigger beam, and Roof Car. As there is no definition in O.S.H.A. of a rolling outrigger, and any person or company can make a Roof Car/Roof Carriage with almost equal ease with the assistance of a competent Registered Professional Engineer. It should, therefore, be clearly spelled out that any outrigger beam that rolls should meet the requirements of a Roof Car/Roof Carriage.
To assert my point, I would state that O.S.H.A. Part 1926 revised as of July 1, 1989, and all preceding copies of this standard state in 1926.451, para. (h), part (4) "THE SCAFFOLD OUTRIGGER BEAMS SHALL CONSIST OF STRUCTURAL METAL SECURELY FASTENED OR ANCHORED TO THE FRAME OR FLOOR SYSTEM OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE." How can this requirement be met by a device that rolls?
Subsequent revisions reference counterweights, I think, the logic being that the counterweights equate to securely fastening or anchoring. This still does not address a rolling outrigger.
Further, 1926.451, para. (k) part (10) states "FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS NOT COVERED IN THIS PARAGRAPH, APPLICABLE TECHNICAL PORTIONS OF AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE, A120.1-1970, POWER OPERATED DEVICES FOR EXTERIOR BUILDING MAINTENANCE POWERED PLATFORMS, SHALL BE USED."
In the more recent standards of 1910.66, a roof carriage is addressed, which is in effect the same as a roof car. It is my understanding that where there is a conflict between two standards, the more stringent standard is to apply.
I would therefore greatly appreciate a clarification on 1926 stating that "WHENEVER AN OUTRIGGER IS DESIGNED, OR USED TO BE ROLLED, IT SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF A120.1-1970, REQUIREMENTS OF A ROOF CAR OR O.S.H.A. 1910.66 REQUIREMENTS OF A ROOF CARRIAGE."
The reasons I feel this clarification is important is that users are presently using beams that are way undersized for the loads to be imposed at the further reach or projection required, using less than half the counterweight needed, and rolling on carriages that are far too flimsy and wheels that cannot sustain the ultimate loads to be imposed.
The cost of a Roof Car is not unreasonable. I now sell them in the range of $1450.00 to $1850.00 as shown in the attached brochure (without counterweights), f.o.b. Baton Rouge, La.. I have been selling them and renting them in the construction and exterior building maintenance field since 1981.
I have never had any problem meeting a customer's requirements. The problem I do have is convincing the user that this is what is necessary to have a "MINIMUM" true safety factor under the stall condition of the hoist as defined by O.S.H.A..
I therefore submit that this clarification is both necessary and desirable to affect safe working conditions in the field.
I thank you in advance for your help in this matter.
Richard N. Hill
1820 S. Choctaw Dr.
Baton Rouge, La. 70805
Tel: (504) 355-8891
Fax: (504) 357-2578
|Standard Interpretations - (Archived) Table of Contents|