Page images
PDF
EPUB

Let's face it. Some standards are not applicable to all conditions. Recognition of this fact must be given by those who are charged with enforcing the standards and this requires a safety professional who can recognize the exposure hazards intended to be covered by a given standard and determine whether or not such standard was intended to cover the exposure under the given set of circumstances. To attempt to apply standards to every set of conditions means misapplying the intent of the standards and this tends to alienate those who are required to abide by the standards.

I agree entirely. I believe it is unfair to expect the compliance officer to have to arrive at some kind of an omniscient understanding of all the safety hazards of every particular industry in this country. It is certainly not a task that I think is a humanly manageable thing.

I agree with Mr. Taylor also on balance. In the first period of this law the compliance officers have been doing an incredibly good job with an enormously difficult task. This is not the problem. The problem is in the standards themselves.

No. 4

Require that future modifications, additions, or deletions of ANSI standards be followed in the Federal regulations, unless the administration can actively show that there is a need for varying from the consensus of the industry involved.

No. 5

Require that the Administration identify in specific numerical terms the frequency of given types of accidents, the costs of these accidents, and the cost of complying with any proposed standard which deals with the causes of these accidents.

On this recommendation I think certainly any rational man would want the standards to be tied to prevention of accidents. There is no need to have standards business must comply with where there are no accidents, and I think in the case of standards we have right now that any given business would find 90 percent-I am pulling a number out of the air of the standards now do not address themselves to problems they actually have.

Now, they may have conditions in their plant which make these standards applicable because they have been written in such a broad sense, but I think it is turning us away from the business at hand to have the businessman look at this enormous volume of standards rather than saying "Let's start out with the accidents that we have and if standards are necessary, let's write the standards. If there are standards already, let's invoke the standards," and I certainly think this is particularly true of people such as roofing contractors that I represent that have only one or two or three people in the office, and certainly it is unreasonable, I think, to ask them to try to dig through this maze of material.

I think that concludes our presentation.

Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Martin, thank you very much. I think your testimony will be very, very helpful and I will bring this to the attention of the Secretary. Perhaps my distinguished colleague here will use his influence, too, with the Secretary to see that some attention is paid to it. Congress will have to take some action along this line. I have no questions.

Mr. Steiger?

Mr. STEIGER. I would be interested in the kind of roofs that your companies are involved with.

Mr. MARTIN. Our members are primarily engaged in commercial and industrial roofing. That is flat roofing. I think only approximately 12 percent of our members' volume is composed of residential shingle roofs. That does not, I think, represent fairly the composition of the industry as a whole.

Mr. STEIGER. So you would be a little unique then in terms of
Mr. MARTIN. Unique?

Mr. STEIGER. Yes. If it is a billion dollar business, I would assume that basically most of that would be residential-type roofs rather than industrial.

Mr. MARTIN. We would like to know the answer to that question and we don't. We don't have statistics on that. Just by doing some backward figuring by tax payrolls as reported by the Government, we estimated that our members supply somewhere between 50 and 75 percent of the dollar volume put out each year.

It gets to be enormously complicated. Yes, I would not want to give you the impression that I represent the average roofing contractor. We have only 750 members and there are some 12,000 roofing and sheet metal contractors in the country.

Mr. STEIGER. Then given that situation, the letter that you wrote to Mr. Guenther on March 31 regarding perimeter protection is as to what kind of problems arise with the kind of roofs that you put on. For example, subpart (d), 1910.28.

Would that be applicable to a flat commercial roof?

Mr. MARTIN. No. Not to burden the record, but, as Mr. Taylor said, that is a general industry standard and I am not even very sure why that is in the general industry standards. In other words, that is not a construction standard. The one in question is the first one that we mentioned, subpart (1) 1926; the wording is identical except that the height minimum is 10 feet there and that was the hearing which I made reference to earlier where the Government had proposed to raise the height in the construction standard from 10 to 16 feet and leave the 3-in-12 pitch the same.

Now, where we get into coverage, subpart (m) 1926.500 (d), which is the third standard mentioned, the first column, third one down, "Every open-sided floor or platform 6 feet or more above adjacent floor or ground level shall be guarded by a standard railing."

This is the classic example. This standard was written by ANSI to cover floors under construction. The Government, when they adopted this standard, added the word "roof" to the general provisions of this standard and said now it applies to roofs.

Well, it was never intended to apply to roofs and somebody just wrote in "roof" into this ANSI standard.

Mr. STEIGER. Where do you read "roof" in there? "Every open-sided floor or platform..."

Mr. MARTIN. That's right. The compliance officers interpret that as meaning a roof, because the general provisions, subparagraph (a) of that regulation says this standard is intended to provide for the safety of employees falling through floor or roof openings, so the general provision mentions the word "roof" so therefore the argument of the Government is that we are covered by that standard. It is enough of a

question so that we have had our members contest the citations and we have had one member win the contest.

This standard does not say "roof." Therefore, it does not apply to roofs, but I also know the Department of Labor is working on new language so that we will be covered. This has been a bone of contention. It has been the only real bone of contention between our industry and the Government. The rest of the standards on balance have been acceptable, have been reasonable.

Mr. STEIGER. And your contention, if I understand it, is that it is an undue imposition to require a guard railing on roofs of 6 feet in height: is that the problem?

Mr. MARTIN. I don't know and I am sure the Government does not know how much this will cost and how many accidents are being caused as a result of people falling off the edge of roofs nationwide. I am also fairly certain that the Government does not know what other alternatives there might be because we don't know either.

This is a brandnew thing. Certainly in some cases this is probably applicable but certainly in a lot of other cases it is not a good idea, but when I go and talk to the people here in Washington, the people that I think of as being fairly knowledgeable, they say, "Well, we don't mean that you need to have a guard rail around the whole roof, only around where the men are working."

The example I have used to them is, "Do you mean if the man goes up to repair the roof on the Pentagon, you have to build a rail around the entire edge of the Pentagon so the guy can work for 2 hours?" They say, "Certainly not. We don't mean that."

The problem is that is not what the regulations say and now that it is in writing it is very, very difficult to change it. In other words— and this is why I am trying to point out the standards areas as being the nub of the problem-we can't go back, but we should have, it seems to me, started out with the least number of standards that we thought might do the job. That way everybody's attention is focused on a number of isolated significant standards.

To start out from where we are now with this huge conglomeration of stuff and then try to get back down to look in reasonable ways at what needs to be done and to get the job done is very, very difficult. We are working and will continue to try to work with the Department of Labor particularly on this issue.

At its logical extreme this will increase the costs of some roofing repair jobs-not new jobs-by astronomical percentage figures, 200, 300, 400 percent.

Mr. STEIGER. If they interpret this to mean that you are required to put a railing around the total roof area being repaired?

Mr. MARTIN. It has been interpreted that way.

Mr. STEIGER. Thank you.

Mr. DANIELS. Does that conclude your testimony, Mr. Martin?
Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you very much.

I will retract my brief statement. I will hear Mr. William Marshall of the American Institute of Architects.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM MARSHALL, JR., CHAIRMAN, COMMIS-
SION ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE
OF ARCHITECTS, WASHINGTON, D.C., ALSO REPRESENTING CON-
SULTING ENGINEERS COUNCIL, ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES
WHITESCARVER, CONSULTING ENGINEERS COUNCIL

Mr. DANIELS. I understand you cannot get back here tomorrow.
Mr. MARSHALL. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

We have a statement which we would like to file, Mr. Chairman. I have two summaries. I know your time is short. I have a long summary and a short one, and I think, if your time is that short, perhaps you would prefer that I just give you the recommendations.

Mr. DANIELS. First let us complete the record. Without objection, your printed statement will be incorporated in the record. Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(The statement referred to follows:)

A STATEMENT BY WILLIAM MARSHALL, JR., FAIA, THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, AND CHARLES K. WHITESCARVER, JR., CONSULTING ENGINEERS COUNCIL OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. Chairman, I am William Marshall, Jr., a practicing architect from Norfolk, Virginia, and Chairman of the Commission on Government Affairs of The American Institute of Architects. With me this morning are Mr. Charles K. Whitescarver, Jr., a consulting engineer from Roanoke, Virginia, and Chairman of the Task Committee on Occupational Safety and Health of the Consulting Engineers Council of the United States, Mr. Arthur Kornblut, from the AIA national headquarters, and Mr. Bruce Vogelsinger, from the CEC national office.

The American Institute of Architects is the national society for the architectural profession representing 24,000 licensed architects. The Consulting Engineers Council of the United States represents 2500 consulting engineering firms from all fifty states.

Today, we wish to present the views of our two organizations on the impact of the Occupational Safety and Health Act on the design professions.

Members of our two organizations individually and collectively design the majority of the buildings and facilities used as places of employment in this country today. AIA and CEC members design facilities and structures ranging from the New York World Trade Center to pulp and paper mills in the mountains of Oregon, from small office buildings in Texas to fish processing plants in Florida. To say the least, the impact of the Occupational Safety and Health Act on our professions is most significant. There is a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding on the part of the design professions regarding the impact of the Act on our role in designing the working environments of the future.

Architects and engineers are licensed by each state for the purpose of protecting the public health, safety and welfare. This licensing, as well as our basic professional concern for designing structures and facilities to enhance the working environment, has involved us in occupational safety and health considerations for as long as buildings have been designed. Our organizations endorse the goal of providing a safe and healthful working environment for all Americans. We are dedicated to the administration of laws in a fair and reasonable manner so that design professionals may fully contribute to the safe and healthful design of existing and future working places.

We, the design professionals, are affected by OSHA-first, as employers, and secondly and uniquely, as designers of facilities to be used as places of employment.

As employers we are, of course, obligated to and desire to provide a safe and healthful place of employment for our own employees. Since most of our work is conducted in an office type surrounding, compliance with OSHA presents little difficulty. However, some employees of architectural and engineering firms visit and work at construction sites to observe and inspect the construction in order to monitor the contractors' compliance with the drawings and specifications. We recognize that these employees must be provided with personal protective equip

ment and educated to avoid unsafe conditions. Architects and engineers, however, are not the employers at the construction site; it is the contractor who is the employer and who has the full responsibility to ensure that the construction is performed in compliance with the OSHA construction standards. This responsibility is clearly specified in the Act and has been confirmed by a further interpretation by the Department of Labor.

Our major concern is the impact OSHA has on our members as designers of facilities which will become work places. Private architectural and engineering firms are retained by their client to design and prepare the drawings and specifications for construction by a third party-a construction contractor. As designers of facilities to be used as work places, architects and engineers have a responsibility to their client-the owner and future employer-to ensure that the design, the drawings and specifications meet the requirements of a multitude of OSHA standards, so that the facility once constructed and in use as a place of employment will comply with the Act.

To do this, the designer must be familiar with the 247 pages of standards published by the Department of Labor, the multitude of consensus standards which are referenced in the OSHA documents, and the numerous changes promulgated to these standards. Additionally, he must interpret the standards and trust that his interpretation is correct. All this must be done in addition to, and evaluated against, his traditional analysis of the requirements of the applicable building codes.

I would like to cite an example which we believe typifies the problems the design professions are faced with in terms of the interpretation of standards and the procedures for notifying the public of changes.

Subpart N of the Industrial Standards pertains to "Materials Handling and Storage" and became effective on February 15, 1972. Under this Subpart, Paragraph 1910.177 sets forth standards for "Indoor General Storage" to include fire protection requirements. It specifically requires that "All warehouses having combustible roof or floor construction . . . shall be protected with the system of automatic sprinklers designed and installed in accordance with the Standard for the installation of Sprinkler Systems, NFPA No. 13-1969." This is without regard to whether or not there are workers within the building.

An architect or engineer designing a facility which would include indoor storage, or a warehouse type structure, would refer to the definition of a "warehouse" which is defined in the OSHA regulations as "any building or area within a building used principally for the storage of commodities." In the absence of any definition in the regulations the question arises as to what is meant by "commodities." Turning to Webster, commodity is defined as (1) "something useful or valuable" and (2) “as an economic good."

An interpretation of all this would mean that virtually any indoor storage areas having combustible roof or floor construction would require an automatic sprinkler system. For example, an architect or engineer in preparing drawings and specifications for a facility simply to store brass ingots would, under a reasonable interpretation, be required to specify an automatic sprinkler system. Likewise a designer preparing specifications for a meat processing plant would interpret this regulation to mean that a warehouse for pork bellies would require automatic sprinkler systems even if the building were not occupied. As you can see, the interpretation of "warehouse" leaves a great deal to be desired.

OSHA has become aware of this problem and two weeks ago in the Federal Register published a proposed amendment revoking Paragraph 1910.177 in its entirety with the explanation that "its provisions do not have in view the protection of employees."

If in the Spring of this year. an architect or engineer designed a wood frame warehouse, his design, following the OSHA regulations, had to include an automatic sprinkler system.

Assuming the facility was constructed during the Summer, it would now be equipped with an automatic sprinkler system that was not required before last February and may not be required in the future. All this at considerable cost to the owner. This situation also presents a dilemma for designers who presently have indoor storage facilities on the drawing boards, since OSHA has only made a proposal to revoke this regulation.

In the context of the present law, there are several changes which would improve the ability of architects and engineers to consider and incorporate applicable OSHA standards in the design.

First, a very real problem exists in procuring the consensus standards referenced by OSHA. As previous witnesses have testified, these are voluminous and very

« PreviousContinue »