THE COHEN GROUP
  Environmental Health & Safety Consulting Services

The Cohen Group Newsletter - Volume 4  Issue 3, Article 2.  September 2002

A Cal/OSHA Citation on Fall Protection

Julie Wellings, CIH

As recently reported in the news, an experienced construction worker wearing a secured safety harness and lanyard died after falling from scaffolding. The accident occurred on a large bridge retrofit project managed by a firm with an excellent safety record; the cause of the accident is under investigation. This tragic death serves as a reminder that a single element (or deficiency) in a fully effective worksite safety program (or the quality of the equipment used in that program) may be the critical element that prevents an accident.

The Cal-OSHA Fall Protection standard for construction (8 CCR 1669 – 1671.2) requires the use of an "approved personal fall protection system" when work is performed at elevated locations and where temporary guardrail protection is impractical. The standard specifies design and performance criteria for fall protection equipment (harnesses, lanyards, lifelines, webbing, anchorages, etc.). Requirements for inspection and use of equipment are also included, but leave ample room for interpretation.

Section 1670 states that "all fall arresting, descent control and rescue equipment shall be … used in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions" and that "lanyards shall be secured to a substantial member of the structure or to securely rigged lines." What if the manufacturer is not clear on every point? What is "substantial"? What is "securely rigged"?

Section 1670 also states that "An approved personal fall arrest, fall restraint or positioning system must be worn by employees whose work exposes them to falling in excess of 7-1/2 feet from the perimeter of a structure … not otherwise adequately protected." What is "adequately protected"? As the following appeal case illustrates, one might even ask: What is "work"?

In a recent Cal-OSHA appeal, an employer with an established fall protection program and approved fall protection equipment was cited after an employee fell 20 to 25 feet while climbing the face of a freeway retaining wall. The citation alleged that the employee "was not secured while working on the side of the retaining wall."

The employee was wearing a full body harness with a three-foot lanyard, but the lanyard was not secured at the time of the accident. The employer’s policy required employees to tie off when working more than 6 feet above grade but did not require tie-off when moving from one location to another on the wall. The employer’s foreman had seen the employee wearing (and properly using) fall protection moments before the fall, but did not witness the accident.

The employer argued that there is a distinction between "working" on the wall and "accessing" (e.g., climbing to) a work location on the wall. The Appeals Board did not agree that there was "any meaningful distinction between working and accessing a work location" with respect to the requirement for being tied off.

The employer also argued that a "serious" citation should not have been issued because the employer did not know, and could not have known with the exercise of due diligence, that the employee was not tied off at the time he fell. The employer asserted that the foreman observed that the employee was tied off just before the fall and is not required to "constantly" observe employees. The Board upheld the "serious" violation stating that the employer’s policy of not requiring employees to tie off when moving from one location to another indicated that the employer had knowledge or with reasonable diligence could have known of the violative condition. The Board further stated that "Employer’s policy of not requiring employees to tie off while moving from one location to another exposed the workers to a danger of falling."

Some information used in this article was from Cal-OSHA Reporter, Summaries of Recent Cal/OSH Appeals Board Decisions; 29 COR 40-4623 [¶ 20,224R]