15
GUEST COMMENT
JULY 2013
ACT
Holding the bag
OSHA staffers quietly point the finger at
the C-DAC panel but they seem to forget
that 17 significant changes to the rule were
made by OSHA between 2004 and August
2010 prior to the crane standard going
into effect. Ten of those changes affected
the crane operator certification portion
of the standard. None of those changes
corrected the two areas of the standard
where the language, admittedly, leaves
room for interpretation.
The two issues
The two issues are simply whether or
not operator certification is equal to
qualification. Or, is an employer’s only
obligation to certify its crane operators
as required by the standard? I will
paraphrase here a much used analogy
comparing a teen driver who has a valid
state issued driver’s license but who
has only driven a small vehicle with an
automatic transmission. Suddenly that
young driver is thrust into a situation
where he or she needs to or desires to
drive something much larger or more
complex, such as a vehicle with a clutch
and manual transmission. As a parent, do
you say, “Is my child qualified and able to
drive this larger or more complex vehicle”
solely because he or she has a license?
Or, do I say no, because the child is not
qualified.
The second debated issue is language in
the crane standard as written that requires
operators to be tested by both type and
capacity. There is no doubt that the
CDAC industry members that originally
promulgated Subpart CC understood two
things. First, that if operator certification
became law, multiple new certification
bodies would emerge. Competition
is good and this has proven to be the
case, and new entities have emerged
with different thoughts on methods of
certification.
But the one thing that the CDAC
committee members understood was that
a certification requirement becoming law
would drive is good effective training.
Certification would then simply be a
means to ensure the training was effective
through independent testing of both
written and practical skills exams. I believe
most, if not all of the CDAC committee
members understood that simple but
broad practical testing was effective from
both a testing and cost standpoint.
The testing methods used by NCCCO
have a proven track record. Testing of
crane operators using the same methods
employed by NCCCO proved to
dramatically reduce accidents according
to studies done in Ontario, Canada and
the state of California. In my opinion, and
countless others, practical testing by boom
length or capacity has no proven benefit
or track record and will cost employers
millions of dollars over current methods
in assembly/disassembly and freight cost
of a much larger variety of cranes.
Unfortunately, because of these issues
and despite broad industry opposition,
the effective date for implementation of
Operator Certification may be rolled back
once again by OSHA until November of
2017. No matter which side of this issue
you’re on, no one wins absent an operator
certification law.
The U.S. crane industry is less safe and
left ‘holding the bag’ wondering what will
become of the nearly 100,000 certified
crane operators already accredited by the
largest and most respected crane operator
certification body, NCCCO, and to crane
operator certification as a whole.
■
Chip Pocock
discusses the crane operator certification controversy.
A
crane operator shows up
looking for a job or is sent to
you from a local union hall.
Your company needs an operator for a
large crane. The operator carries a valid
operator certification card, he or she has a
current DOT medical card, and a resume
that boasts experience on several types of
large cranes of similar type and capacity as
the crane you need to be run.
Oh, and by the way, you paid roughly
$4.5 million for the crane.
The crane will be operated in a variety of
locations, inside of refineries and chemical
plants, setting wind turbines hundreds of
feet in the air and erecting steel or precast
concrete in downtown urban areas. The
question is, do you hire this person and
put him or her in the seat of that crane
based solely on the fact that he or she has a
valid operator certification?
Does certification equal qualification?
Or, would you use some type of method
to ensure the stated experience operating
cranes of similar types and capacities was
accurate? If for no other reason, than
to provide peace of mind, I hope most
would agree that the latter is our duty and
obligation as employers.
This same question is faced by hundreds
of crane owners across the U.S. every day,
companies like ours, that have a large
fleet of cranes. Apparently OSHA is not
sure either. Despite not implementing a
crane safety standard that was originally
negotiated by industry experts (C-DAC)
in 2004 until 2010, OSHA now seems
willing to once again postpone a much
needed and long overdue portion of
Subpart CC, the Crane and Derrick
Standard that governs safety for cranes
used in the construction industry
requiring crane operators to be certified.
BIO:
Chip Pocock
is
safety/risk manager of
Buckner Companies, a
NCCCO certified crane
operator and practical
examiner, and was a
member of the OSHA
Crane and Derrick
Advisory Committee.
‘‘
In my opinion, and
countless others, practical
testing by boom length or
capacity has no proven
benefit or track record and
will cost employers millions of
dollars over current methods
in assembly/disassembly and
freight cost of a much larger
variety of cranes.
