Consensus standards are developed through a logical process involving safety experts and are important guidelines for preventing workplace hazards. While not directly enforceable, OSHA may reference consensus standards to provide evidence that a hazard is recognized and how it can be abated. Consensus standards also help define the standard of care in tort litigation. Examples provided show how OSHA has cited general industry and construction hazards by referencing consensus standards from groups like ANSI, NFPA and ASME to support citations under the General Duty Clause.

1. Do You Need to Follow Them? Consensus Standards Anna E. Jolly, JD, CHMM

2. What are they? Standards – Whether it has been promulgated by OSHA, MSHA, a state agency or a voluntary standards group, the purpose is to prevent employees from being exposed to a hazard. Voluntary Consensus Standard are those developed or adopted by voluntary consensus bodies through a process of logical and agreed-upon process. June 3 & 4, 2010 2 Circle Safety & Health Consultants, LLC © 2010

3. Why are they important? They reflect the opinions of safety and health professionals and other groups such as users and worker representatives, and academics in all levels of the public and private sector. They are systematically reviewed to keep them current. They are a valuable guideline or reference. June 3 & 4, 2010 3 Circle Safety & Health Consultants, LLC © 2010

4. Most Common Consensus Bodies ANSI – American National Standards Institute ASTM- American Society of Testing and Materials NFPA – National Fire Protection Association NEC – National Electrical Code ACGIH – American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists June 3 & 4, 2010 4 Circle Safety & Health Consultants, LLC © 2010

5. History of Consensus Standards and OSHA Adoption during first 2 years of OSHA. 5

6. Incorporation by Reference (PPE) 1910.133(b)Criteria for protective eye and face protection. 1910.133(b)(1) Protective eye and face protection devices must comply with any of the following consensus standards: 1910.133(b)(1)(i) ANSI Z87.1-2003, "American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection," which is incorporated by reference in § 1910.6; 1910.133(b)(1)(ii) ANSI Z87.1-1989 (R-1998), "American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection," which is incorporated by reference in § 1910.6; or 1910.133(b)(1)(iii) ANSI Z87.1-1989, "American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection," which is incorporated by reference in § 1910.6. 1910.133(b)(2) Protective eye and face protection devices that the employer demonstrates are at least as effective as protective eye and face protection devices that are constructed in accordance with one of the above consensus standards will be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of this section. June 3 & 4, 2010 6 Circle Safety & Health Consultants, LLC © 2010

7. Does OSHA use them for enforcement? Recognize that these are voluntary standards. But, sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t. The OSHA Field Operations Manual (Sept. 2009) “These private standards cannot be enforced as OSHA standards, but they may be used to provide evidence of industry recognition, seriousness of the hazard or feasibility of abatement methods”. June 3 & 4, 2010 7 Circle Safety & Health Consultants, LLC © 2010

8. 1. Development of New Standards Congress issued the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 USC §272 OMB Circular A – 119 (1998) Agencies must use unless inconsistent with law or otherwise impractical Agencies must consult with consensus standards bodies and participate in standards development. May adopt only portions or incorporate by reference. June 3 & 4, 2010 8 Circle Safety & Health Consultants, LLC © 2010

9. 2. Di Minimis Conditions Where an employer has implemented a measure different than the one specified in the standard, that has no direct of immediate relationship to safety or health. If the employer complies with a proposed OSHA standard or amendment or a consensus standard that provides equal or greater employee protection. Documented but no citation issued. June 3 & 4, 2010 9 Circle Safety & Health Consultants, LLC © 2010

10. Example Fixed industrial ladders Standard 1910.27(d)(2) Landings at 30 feet Proposed Standard: Walking & Working Surfaces (1990, 2003, 2010) Landings at 50 feet ANSI – ASC A14.3 – 2008 Landings at 50 feet June 3 & 4, 2010 10 Circle Safety & Health Consultants, LLC © 2010

11. 3. General Duty Clause: 5(a)(1) 29 USC 654 SEC. 5. Duties (a) Each employer -- (1) shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees; June 3 & 4, 2010 11 Circle Safety & Health Consultants, LLC © 2010

12. Elements of the Violation ► The employer failed to keep the workplace free of a hazard to which employees of that employer were exposed; ► The hazard was recognized; ► The hazard was causing or was likely to cause death or serious physical harm; and ► There was a feasible and useful method to correct the hazard. June 3 & 4, 2010 12 Circle Safety & Health Consultants, LLC © 2010

13. Nuances of General Duty Hazards cited must present the possibility of death or great bodily harm Exposure of the cited employer’s own employees Used only where no existing OSHA standard applies to the particular hazard June 3 & 4, 2010 13 Circle Safety & Health Consultants, LLC © 2010

14. What is the role of the consensus standard? Evidence that the hazard is recognized in the industry Evidence of the seriousness of the hazard Feasibility of the abatement methods June 3 & 4, 2010 14 Circle Safety & Health Consultants, LLC © 2010

15. 4. Use in Tort Cases Frequently used to establish the “standard of care” in litigation. OSHA’s use of the consensus standard gives it more weight. June 3 & 4, 2010 15 Circle Safety & Health Consultants, LLC © 2010

16. General Industry Examples June 3 & 4, 2010 16 Circle Safety & Health Consultants, LLC © 2010

17. National Fire Protection Association 70E Has not been adopted by OSHA When a serious shock or arc-flash incident 1910.335(a)(1)(i) for PPE 1910.132(d)(1) for PPE assessments General duty clause June 3 & 4, 2010 17 Circle Safety & Health Consultants, LLC © 2010

18. ANSI/ASSE Z244.1-2003 Control of Hazardous Energy – Lockout Tagout 1910.147 Can be used as a guide Energy control procedures Parts are considered not as effective Alternative methods Tagout use June 3 & 4, 2010 18 Circle Safety & Health Consultants, LLC © 2010

19. ANSI B11.3: Safety Requirements for Power Press Brakes Hazard: GUARDINGSection 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: a) Shop - The points of operation of press brakes were not protected by guards or guarding devices. As an alternative, the employer had not developed and implemented a safe distance program. On or about 03/01/2010. NOTE: One feasible abatement method would be to develop and implement a safe distance program that complies with the requirements of ANSI B11.3-1982 and OSHA Directive CPL 2-1.25. June 3 & 4, 2010 19 Circle Safety & Health Consultants, LLC © 2010

20. NFPA 654 - 2006: Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Dust Explosions …. Hazard: DUST&FUMESNorth Carolina General Statute 95-129(1) of the Occupational Safety: Employees were exposed to an explosion hazard due an accumulation of dust/powder produced during rubber processing at mixing area from dust/powder containing carbon black, sulfur and other synthetic rubber manufacturing materials, including but not limited to, HRJ-2765 (thermoplastic phenolic resin), OT TMTD (thiram), zinc oxide and Crystex HD OT 20, during the mixing process. Among other methods of abatement, one feasible method would be to follow the guidelines laid out in the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 654, Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids (2006 Edition.) June 3 & 4, 2010 20 Circle Safety & Health Consultants, LLC © 2010

21. Construction Examples June 3 & 4, 2010 21 Circle Safety & Health Consultants, LLC © 2010

22. ANSI B30.5-1968: Mobile and Locomotive Cranes Hazard: STRUCK BYSection 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: (a)Highway 32, Water Valley, MS - On or about March 18, 2010 the employer did not ensure that the load hook, ball assembly and load block used by an American Crawler Crane to lift a 5200 pound concrete bucket was equipped with a latch for the hook and a label with rated capacity and weight. One feasible and used abatement method for correcting this hazard, among others, is to, comply with American National Standard (ANSI/ASME B30.5b - 1985) for Mobile and Locomotive Cranes, paragraph 5-1.7.6: All hook and ball assemblies and load blocks shall be labeled with their rated capacity and weight. Hooks shall be equipped with latches. June 3 & 4, 2010 22 Circle Safety & Health Consultants, LLC © 2010

23. ANSI A14.4-1992: Job Made Wooden Ladders Hazard: FALLINGSection 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: New Design Construction did not ensure that employees were protected from fall hazards, in that employees used a job made wooden ladder without the filler blocks inserted between the cleats. Among other methods one feasible and acceptable abatement method to correct this hazardous condition would be to develop and implement procedures and training, in accordance with ANSI A14.4-1992, for proper job made wooden ladders. June 3 & 4, 2010 23 Circle Safety & Health Consultants, LLC © 2010

24. ANSI /SAI A92.6: Self-Propelled Elevating Work Platforms Hazard: FALLINGSection 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: On or about January 14, 2010, and at times thereto, at the work-site located at 611 Columbia Street in Helena, Arkansas, employees working from a self-propelled elevating work platform [Upright Model XRT 33 S/N 2810] were exposed to injuries from falls should the scissor lift malfunction causing a collapse, overturn or other adverse action because the employer/user did not ensure or cause an annual inspection to be performed on the lift prior to use. One feasible method of abatement, among others is to ensure or cause annual inspections to be performed in accordance with Section 6.7, ANNUAL INSPECTION of the American National Standard Institute, ANSI/SIA A92.6-1999. June 3 & 4, 2010 24 Circle Safety & Health Consultants, LLC © 2010

25. ANSI/ASME B56.6: Safety Standard for Rough Terrain Forklift Trucks Hazard: LIFTINGSection 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. On or about March 15, 2010, an employee working on a commercial building on the north side was exposed to fall hazards at a height of up to approximately 6 feet by standing on the forks of a forklift to remove a lifting strap off a beam. Among other methods, one feasible and acceptable means to abate this hazard is to use a work platform that is designed in accordance with American Society of Mechanical Engineers ANSI/ASME B56.6-6-2002, Safety Standards for Rough Terrain Forklift Trucks. June 3 & 4, 2010 25 Circle Safety & Health Consultants, LLC © 2010

26. Summary Consensus Standards are exceedingly important in Occupational Safety and Health They can be the basis of standards, evidence of compliance, or support for citations They are not always required, but…….. At the end of the day, are they really voluntary? June 3 & 4, 2010 26 Circle Safety & Health Consultants, LLC © 2010

27. Any Questions June 3 & 4, 2010 27 Circle Safety & Health Consultants, LLC @ 2010