Protecting the Public in Proximity to Construction Sites

A city block of construction with security fences and traffic control devices (Photo: Jan Thomas)For this week’s Guest Post Friday, Musings has the pleasure of welcoming Jan Thomas, President of Circle Safety & Health Consultants, LLC for her second Guest Post. Jan is an occupational safety and health professional with doctorate, over 30 years of experience at the federal, state and university levels, and professional certification. Her background includes regulatory compliance, accident and fatality investigations, development of policy and procedures, program management and extensive experience in education, training, research, technical writing, forensic consultation and expert witness testimony. She is also a friend of mine and can be found on LinkedIn or by e-mail.

We usually think about safety on construction sites with the focus on workers. The federal or state OSHA jurisdiction on commercial construction begins where an employer-employee relationship exists. In addition, CPL 2-0.124 –Multi-Employer Citation Policy dictates overall jobsite safety between contractors. So, when we need some basic guidance on safety we grab the OSHA standards.

But what about safety of the public – on adjoining streets or sidewalks, or across the fence in the school yard, or even across the intersection? What about invited visitors on site? OSHA is almost silent.

Some of the OSHA rules for protecting workers do secondarily protect the public. For example, OSHA requires placarding of parked equipment, barricading of open trenches or the swing-radius of a crane, and using flaggers at traffic work zones. But these are few and indirect.

What may be needed is an actual plan for public safety, especially at sites where the public is ever present (city streets) or in high-risk areas (near schools). Common sense may help guide such a plan but you may want to also check out a little-known consensus standard – ANSI/ASSE A10.34-2001 (R2005) Protection of the Public on or Adjacent to Construction.

Here is a quick review. The public is defined as “All persons and property not affiliated with the construction project. This includes invitees to the construction project who are not employed by the project constructor or contractors.” What about trespassers? They are excluded from the definition of the public. But, be sure to put up those No Trespasser signs to defend your property rights.

The consensus standard provides guidelines for developing a site-specific public hazard control plan and emergency action plan. Fourteen specific hazards are identified and the standard’s appendix provides a checklist. The consensus standard is fairly short but is a great place to start your thought process for extending safety beyond the boundaries of your construction site.

Speaking at the 15th Annual VOSH Conference

I will be speaking at the 15th Annual Virginia Occupational Safety and Health (VOSH) Conference on June 2 and 3, 2010.  I will be speaking on record keeping for safety.  I hope to see you all there.  Check out the brochure below.

[ipaper id=30235793]

As always, I welcome your comments below.  Please subscribe to keep up with this and other Construction Law Musings.

Safety Codes Lack Standards For Critical Crane Repairs

Safety Codes Lack Standards For Critical Crane Repairs ENR: Engineering News Record McGraw-Hill Construction

A post from ENR about yet another safety failure by OSHA. Do we need more regulation or just better enforcement? Join the conversation and let me know.

Upcoming Construction Related Events

I just thought I’d give a quick update on my upcoming construction related activities.  I have been lucky enough to be invited to speak at various conferences and meetings of construction professionals.

On Thursday, April 22, 2010, I will be speaking on the topic of Construction Contract Pitfalls to the local chapter of the ASPE.  Here’s the brochure for more details.

On June 2 and 3, 2010 I will be speaking at the 2010 Annual VOSH Occupational Safety Conference on the topic of Ethical Considerations for Safety Officials. Here are the details.

I will still be speaking (along with Scott Wolfe, Shari Shapiro and Tim Hughes) at the now rescheduled for fall Green Legal Matters conference on the topic of LEEDigation: The Impact of LEED on Construction Litigation and Practice.  For more on this, click here.

I will also be authoring the Virginia Construction Law Survey for the University of Richmond Law Review.  This will be published at a date to be determined.  If any of you Virginia construction attorneys have any recent (post 2008) developments that you think should be included, please let me know.

I thank all of you who have offered me opportunities to publish in your publications.  I will be sure to link to those articles at the appropriate time.

Thanks again to all of you who regularly read Construction Law Musings and post in the Guest Post Friday series.  I truly appreciate all of your readership and efforts.

UPDATE:  I have just gotten confirmation that I will be speaking at the ASSE Region VI Professional Development Conference, check out the lineup here.

UPDATE Pt. 2: The Green Legal Matters Conference has been postponed to September 2010.

As always, I welcome your comments below.  Please subscribe to keep up with this and other Construction Law Musings.

Personal Safety Records- A Good Idea?

Image via Wikipedia

A recent issue of ENR caught my attention with its cover story about the personal safety records debate.  The article and the viewpoints expressed in the Pro and Con discussions got me “musing” on the propriety of such a requirement.

On the one hand, such a personalized approach could lead to safer work places because the requirement may hit home.  Workers required to keep such records and self report may very well heed OSHA warnings and employer safety requirements.  On the other, would the reward from requiring employers to upgrade their safety programs, with the attendant cost, and hoping that OSHA could keep up with approximately 11 million of these reports outweigh the cost and administrative hassle that such reports would require?

As E. Collette Nelson of the American Subcontractors Association points out in the ENR article, contractors are interested in accurate safety information but balk at the thought of even more paperwork and potential privacy issues.  Also, a big issue is what about injuries due to negligence of other trades or workers on a multi-employer job site (see a discussion of the unique nature of OSHA regulation of these sites here).

While statistics show that employee acts cause many accidents, I fall somewhere in the middle of the debate.  I tend to agree with the position stated by Bradley Sant of the American Road & Transportation Builders Association who agrees that portable, personal safety records are a good idea, but more bureaucracy is not the way to go.  Employers, at least in Virginia, have the right to require such reporting with or without OSHA regulation.  Requiring such reporting, at least on a basic level, may be a good idea for construction employers who want to keep their job sites from negative VOSH and OSHA inspection results.

In any event, consult with a knowledgeable attorney or safety consultant when drafting (or hopefully updating) your job site safety program.

To weigh in on this debate, please comment below.  Also, please subscribe to keep up with the latest Musings.

Exit mobile version