|
Text from
the OSHA Logging Preamble
Section V: Summary and
Explanation of the Final Standard
Paragraph (e) Hand and Portable Powered Tools
Paragraph (e) of this final rule contains requirements for the safe use of hand and
portable powered tools, including chain saws. For the most part, these requirements were
derived from corresponding provisions in the pulpwood logging standard.
In the final rule OSHA has combined provisions regarding both hand tools and chain
saws. This was done to provide uniformity in how tools are addressed in the logging
standard. In addition, OSHA has combined these provisions to reduce duplicative
provisions, such as those dealing with maintenance and inspection of tools.
General Requirements
Paragraph (e)(1) deals with general requirements for all hand and portable powered
tools. At paragraph (e)(1)(i) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring employers to assure
that each hand and portable powered tool is maintained in serviceable condition. This
employer responsibility applies whether the tool is provided by the employer or employee.
This paragraph adopts the proposed provision. All State logging standards contain similar
requirements about the maintenance of logging tools.
OSHA received several comments on this provision (Ex. 5-35, 5-39, 5-53, 5-54, 5-62,
5-63, 5-66). These commenters supported the need for tools to be properly maintained. One
commenter said that lack of proper maintenance of chain saws contributes to a number of
accidents (Ex. 5-35). However, most of the commenters stated that the maintenance of tools
that are supplied by employees should be the employees' responsibility (Ex. 5-35, 5-53,
5-54, 5-62, 5-63, 5-66).
One commenter stated:
We feel that it is not reasonable and it is burdensome to logging companies to have to
be responsible for the condition and safety of an employee's own tools. We feel very
strongly that there should be a recognition of one's individual responsibility in this
area. A more general statement might be appropriate in this item simply stating that
"tools shall be properly maintained so as to assure safe operation and shall be used
only for their intended purpose and design" (Ex. 5-39).
OSHA does not agree with these commenters. OSHA believes that the Agency's reasoning in
including a maintenance provision in the PPE section applies here as well (See summary and
explanation of paragraph (d)(1)(i)). The requirement for employers to assure that tools
are maintained in a serviceable condition does not prohibit the employer from allowing an
employee to inspect, maintain and repair tools he provides. The employer's
responsibilities for compliance with standards and for safe working conditions that the
OSH Act imposes, applies even if the employee provides the tools.
This paragraph is meant to be viewed in conjunction with paragraph (e)(1)(ii), that
requires inspection of tools before they are used in each workshift. As discussed above,
"serviceable condition" is the state or ability of a tool to operate as it was
intended by the manufacturer.
At paragraph (e)(1)(ii), OSHA is requiring that the employer assure that each tool is
inspected before initial use during each work shift. This paragraph also specifies the
minimum elements to be inspected, such as chain brakes, handles, guards, and controls, to
assure that the tools are functioning properly. In the proposed standard, OSHA specified
that hand tools be checked during use to ensure continued serviceability. The proposed
rule also required chain saws to be "frequently" inspected. The proposed rule
also contained elements that must be included in hand tool inspections. The 1978 ANSI
logging standard also required periodic inspection of tools.
OSHA received comments on these provisions. Some commenters recommended that OSHA
establish the frequency that tools, such as chain saws, should be inspected (Ex. 5-21,
5-36, 5-39, 5-53). One commenter objected to inspection of chain saws:
The need for chain saws to be "frequently inspected" should be clarified
further. How often is frequently and who would be responsible for the inspections? (Ex.
5-39).
OSHA believes that the final rule adequately addresses the commenter's concerns. First,
OSHA explicitly identifies the required frequency for inspection of tools. Second, nothing
in the final rule prohibits the employer from allowing the tool user or operator to
conduct the workshift inspection, provided that such inspection and the required content
of the inspection are accomplished in the manner and time frame specified by OSHA.
Finally, the standard specifies the minimum elements that must be covered by the
inspection.
At paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that the employer assure
that each tool is used only for purposes for which it has been designed. OSHA has adopted
the provision from the proposed rule. The 1978 ANSI logging standard also contained this
requirement. OSHA received only one comment on this provision that supported its inclusion
(Ex. 5-39).
At paragraph (e)(1)(iv) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that when the head of any
shock, impact-driven or driving tool begins to chip, it shall be repaired or removed from
service. The proposed rule would have required that tools be repaired when "any
mushrooming" occurs. A similar requirement was contained in the 1978 ANSI logging
standard.
The State of Washington opposed the proposed provision, stating that the language was
too restrictive (Ex. 5-34, 9-10). The State said that as soon as a plastic wedge if firmly
struck there will be some small amount of mushrooming. In the final rule, OSHA has
clarified this provision by requiring that the tool be repaired or removed from service
when it begins to chip. OSHA believes that this language more accurately describes the
hazard that arises over time with these tools. Over time there is a tendency for the steel
in these tools to become brittle and chip. When a tool has reached that point, continued
use of the tool can cause metal fragments to chip off the tool and fly into the air,
thereby endangering employees. The metal fragments could be small enough to strike the eye
or large enough to cause a sizeable laceration.
At paragraph (e)(1)(v) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that the cutting edges of
each tool be sharpened in accordance with manufacturer's specifications whenever they
become dull during a workshift. OSHA received little comment on this provision. One
commenter stated:
With regard to the sharpness of cutting tools, we have had some interpretive problem in
California where fire suppression agencies who have been requiring various tools to be
razor sharp rather than sharp enough to do the task for which they are intended. The
result has been unnecessary cuts to employees who have inadvertently had incidental
contact with such tools. We would suggest that the word "adequately" be inserted
between the words "kept" and "sharp" to provide a more
"moderate" meaning to this requirement. (Ex. 5-55).
The need for tools to be inspected and sharpened as necessary is well-recognized and
has been a part of OSHA's and ANSI's logging standards from the start. OSHA believes that
the final rule adequately addresses the commenter's concerns. OSHA has added to the final
rule the requirement that tools be sharpened according to the manufacturer's
specifications. This addition has also been supported by other commenters (Ex. 5-51, 5-53,
5-55).
At paragraphs (e)(1)(vi) and (vii) OSHA is requiring that each tool be stored and
transported so it is not damaged and will not create a hazard for an employee. These
provisions require that racks, boxes, holsters or other means shall be provided and used
for transporting tools. These provisions parallel requirements contained in the proposed
and pulpwood logging standards. The proposed rule specified that tools be secured during
transport but did not require that storage containers be provided. In addition, these
provisions as proposed were included in the 1978 ANSI logging standard. OSHA received only
limited comments on these provisions. Two commenters stated that the storage provision was
unnecessary and, at most, should be limited to cutting tools (Ex. 3-53 and 5-55). The
other commenter said that the proposed transportation provision was not protective enough
(Ex. 5-7). This commenter stated that outside boxes or storage units should be utilized
especially for crew vehicles, because tools can bounce around when transported in such a
vehicle, particularly when the vehicle is operated on off highway roads or trails, and
could injure employees who are riding with the tools.
OSHA believes that provisions for proper tool storage and transportation are necessary
to protect employees from injuries. Such provisions have been in OSHA and ANSI standards
for many years. In this regard, however, OSHA also believes that it is not necessary to
require that tools be stored outside of passenger areas during transport if there are
appropriate containers or other means to adequately secure the tools. Therefore, in the
final rule OSHA has clarified that employers must provide and use some means, such as
racks, boxes or holsters, of securing tools during transport.
* * *
|
Back to Top 
www.osha.gov
