Key Takeaways
- All suspension support devices must support at least four times the load or 1.5 times the load at stall capacity to ensure safety.
- Regular inspection of ropes, support devices, and mechanical parts is critical, including the use of checklists that require detailed entries to verify compliance.
- Use of proper materials, such as steel or wrought iron, is mandated for support devices, with procedures in place for replacement if standards are not met.
- Implementing detailed, practical checklists and training can significantly reduce human error and help maintain OSHA compliance in scaffold operations.
Citations for violating scaffolding requirements consistently make it onto OSHA’s annual Top 10 list. The requirements are in 29 CFR 1926.451(a) through (h). In this Part 4, we look at the requirements for suspended scaffolds [29 CFR 1926.451(d)].
The first requirement is for all suspension support devices. They must rest on surfaces capable of supporting at least four times the load imposed on them by the scaffold operating at the greater of either:
- The rated load of the hoist, or
- At least 1.5 times the load imposed on them by the scaffold at the stall capacity of the hoist.
The second requirement applies to outrigger beams. If they are used, they must be made of sufficient metal material (or equivalent) and restrained to prevent movement [29 CFR 1926.451(d)(2)].
The third requirement is a long one. It consists of 29 CFR 1926.451(d)(3)(i) through (x). It applies to the inboard ends of suspension scaffold outrigger beams and how they are stabilized. For example, counterweights shall be secured by mechanical means to the outrigger beams to prevent accidental displacement [29 CFR 1926.451(d)(3)(iv)].
The fourth requirement applies to suspension scaffold outrigger beams, and it consists of 29 CFR 1926.451(d)(4)(i) through (v). For example, they must be provided with stop bolts or shackles at both ends.
The fifth requirement applies to suspension scaffold support devices, and consists of 29 CFR 1926.451(d)(5)(i) through (iv). For example, tiebacks shall be equivalent in strength to the hoisting rope.
This series of requirements continues on through 29 CFR 1926.451(d)(19). The sheer amount of detail here requires extraordinary attention, follow-up, training, and monitoring to avoid an OSHA fine. More importantly, people’s lives are at risk if you gloss over a single detail. Here’s a quick overview:
- Winding drum hoists [29 CFR 1926.451(d)(6)].
- You can’t use repaired rope [29 CFR 1926.451(d)(7)].
- Joined wire suspension ropes. [29 CFR 1926.451(d)(8)].
- Load end of wire suspension ropes [29 CFR 1926.451(d)(9)].
- Rope inspection [29 CFR 1926.451(d)(10)(i) through (vi)].
- Swaged attachments and spliced eyes [29 CFR 1926.451(d)(11)].
- Rope clips [29 CFR 1926.451(d)(12)(i) through (vi)].
- Hoist testing [29 CFR 1926.451(d)(13)].
- No gasoline-powered equipment [29 CFR 1926.451(d)(14)].
- Gears and brakes must be enclosed [29 CFR 1926.451(d)(15)].
- Additional automatic brake required to engage in case of instantaneous change in momentum or an accelerated overspeed [29 CFR 1926.451(d)(16)].
- Manually operated hoists shall require a positive crank force to descend. [29 CFR 1926.451(d)(17)].
- It may be necessary to tie or otherwise secure scaffolds to stop them from swaying (decision to be made by qualified person). [29 CFR 1926.451(d)(18)].
- Emergency escape and rescue devices shall not be used as working platforms [29 CFR 1926.451(d)(19)].
With all of those requirements, isn’t it just a matter of time until somebody forgets something and you have a fatal incident (or, if you’re lucky, just an OSHA citation)? Yes, if you are relying on memory and the idea that human error can be eliminated through sheer discipline. No, if you use the proper compliance tools. Chief among those should be checklists.
One way to make checklists ineffective is to put down affirmative statements that people simply check off. There’s a tendency to give a visual “from memory” inspection and then check off the boxes on the list for pro forma purposes.
To overcome this, design your checklists to require the inspecting person to enter some value wherever practical. That will require them to actually look to answer the question. Consider this requirement:
Suspension scaffold support devices shall be made of steel, wrought iron, or materials of equivalent strength [29 CFR 1926.451(d)(5)(i)]. You could put a true/false or yes/no question on the checklist. Or you could do this:
“List each suspension support device and the material it is made of.”
If you’re using an app, it can alarm the inspector that something isn’t right. If you’re using paper, then the next question would be, “If any of the above devices is not made of steel, wrought iron, or materials of equivalent strength, it must be replaced. List those devices here, then mark off each one as it is replaced.”
Designing these checklists is tedious and prone to mistakes. The good news is there are several firms that already offer these. You can ask your scaffolding provider or look online. While these companies have great track records, it’s still not a bad idea to look for a string of yes/no questions that can potentially elicit the robot response of simply checking them. Where you encounter that problem, give your feedback to the company you bought the checklists from and then update your copies as needed.
About the Author
Mark Lamendola
Mark is an expert in maintenance management, having racked up an impressive track record during his time working in the field. He also has extensive knowledge of, and practical expertise with, the National Electrical Code (NEC). Through his consulting business, he provides articles and training materials on electrical topics, specializing in making difficult subjects easy to understand and focusing on the practical aspects of electrical work.
Prior to starting his own business, Mark served as the Technical Editor on EC&M for six years, worked three years in nuclear maintenance, six years as a contract project engineer/project manager, three years as a systems engineer, and three years in plant maintenance management.
Mark earned an AAS degree from Rock Valley College, a BSEET from Columbia Pacific University, and an MBA from Lake Erie College. He’s also completed several related certifications over the years and even was formerly licensed as a Master Electrician. He is a Senior Member of the IEEE and past Chairman of the Kansas City Chapters of both the IEEE and the IEEE Computer Society. Mark also served as the program director for, a board member of, and webmaster of, the Midwest Chapter of the 7x24 Exchange. He has also held memberships with the following organizations: NETA, NFPA, International Association of Webmasters, and Institute of Certified Professional Managers.