The formal title of the proposed cranes and derricks rule is 29 CFR (the section of the Code of Federal Regulations covering standards) Part 1926 (OSHA construction standards) Subpart N (cranes and derricks). More commonly, it has become known as C-DAC, for the 23-member Crane and Derricks Advisory Committee that drafted the rule back in 2003/04.
OSHA spent the intervening period writing an economic analysis of the new standard, and an audit on the effect of the standard on small businesses. By the start of this year, many crane industry insiders had given up hope of seeing the committee’s hard work bear fruit.
In the summary to the rule, OSHA says, “Under this proposed rule, employers would first determine whether the ground is sufficient to support the anticipated weight of hoisting equipment and associated loads.
“The employer then would be required to assess hazards within the work zone that would affect the safe operation of hoisting equipment, such as those of power lines and objects or personnel that would be within the work zone or swing radius of the hoisting equipment.
“Finally, the employer would be required to ensure that the equipment is in safe operating condition via required inspections and employees in the work zone are trained to recognise hazards associated with the use of the equipment and any related duties that they are assigned to perform.”
Over the next 240 pages of the Federal Register, the rule explains the C-DAC experts’ view of the best way to do this, and raises questions to be considered during the public consultation.
In a draft economic analysis, OSHA estimates that the standard would avoid 53 fatalities and 155 injuries every year. At industry costs of $50,000 per injury, and $7.5m per fatality, the industry stands to benefit by $406m per year.
On the other hand, stricter regulation comes at a cost. OSHA estimates that operator qualification and certification alone will cost an estimated $37.3m per year; tighter rules on crane assembly and disassembly will cost nearly as much, $33.5m. Power line safety rules will cost $30.8m and crane inspections $21.6m. In other words, the industry stands to gain a net benefit of $283m, according to its calculations.
The standard requires crane manufacturers to install sensors on the cranes one year after the final rule, so probably by 2010-2011. Brent Twombly, sales manager of boom truck maker Altec told Cranes Today, “One thing we are watching at the moment are OSHA’s new proposals for crane standards. These will require outrigger sensors and drum rotation indicators.”
“They also lay out five methods for avoiding power line contact, and say that the crane must meet at least one of these when operating within 20ft of a live power line. These include range control, proximity detectors, range limiters, having a dedicated spotter, and warning systems in the cab. Altec welcomes this, and all of our equipment is ready to meet the requirements.”
Operator certification
One of the most controversial sections was about operator certification. Four years after the standard is published (so probably in 2013, or 2014) most crane operators will need to be certified by an accredited third-party crane/derrick operator testing organisation. Signalpersons need to be qualified by a third-party qualified evaluator or employer’s qualified evaluator.
In the preamble, OSHA said, “The committee believed that it was essential to address the issue of operator qualification so that accidents resulting from incorrect operation would be reduced. C-DAC spent considerable time and effort determining how the proposed rule could best ensure that equipment operators are well qualified. C-DAC decided that it was necessary for crane operators to be certified or qualified through a formal process to ensure that they possessed the degree of knowledge necessary to operate the equipment safely.”
It appears that the operator certification requirements only barely scraped through; there were two dissenting views from C-DAC committee members, the maximum number of allowed while still meeting the previously-defined terms of consensus. The two dissenters were Craig Steele, president and CEO of Schuck & Sons Construction Company, and Brian Murphy, vice president and safety director of Sundt Corp, who represented construction group Associated General Contractors. Murphy’s comments were published in the Proposed Rule preamble (pp 59819-59822).
In his dissent, he writes that AGC feels the qualification and certification requirements are too restrictive. “For many and perhaps the vast majority of construction contractors, none of the four options for operator qualification or certification are practical to pursue.
“AGC doubts that the NCCCO could meet the enormous demand that section 1427 would generate for crane and derrick operator testing and certification. If adopted, Section 1427 would take that demand to an entirely new level.
“However logical it may be, AGC maintains that OSHA cannot simply suppose that the supply of the necessary services would materialise. The stakes are much too great. If other testing organizations did not enter the market, or they subsequently failed for financial or other reasons, or they simply found it necessary to charge more than most contractors could bear, the construction industry could find itself in gridlock.”
Graham Brent, executive director of the NCCCO, counters that some of these points have been overtaken by recent events. “The first point is, we experienced a fivefold increase in volume when California demanded operator certification in June 2005, and had no trouble meeting demand.
“From the time this rule is approved, there will be a five-year compliance window. It has been four years since the document was completed. That’s a 10-year period, with six more years to run. I see no reason why we cannot deal with an increase in popularity by then.
“Third, it is likely that for-profit organisations will see some commercial gain and try to do some of this themselves.” For example, Operating Engineers Local 12 in California, and Crane Institute of America both have achieved third party accreditation for operator certification, Brent says.
