Text from
the OSHA Logging PreambleSection IV: Major Issues
A. Introduction
* * *
10. Manual felling. The hearing notice raised two issues
regarding manual felling: should exceptions to the undercut requirement be allowed, and
where should the backcut be required to be made?
a. Undercut requirement. The proposed standard included a
provision requiring each manually felled tree to be undercut. This provision also required
that undercuts be of a size to guide the tree fall in the intended direction and to
minimize the possibility of splitting. The purpose of this provision was to prevent trees
from splitting, kicking back, or falling in an unintended direction, thereby injuring an
employee.
Some commenters supported the proposed requirement (Ex. 5-42, 9-15; Tr. OR 485-88). One
commenter said:
[Undercutting] helps protect the feller from the butt of the tree riding back up the
sawn notch and springing backwards over the stump towards him if the tree is felled
uphill, or strikes something during its fall that pushes [the tree] backwards (Ex. 9-15)
However, other commenters said OSHA should revise the undercut requirement in the final
rule (Ex. 5-21, 5-39, 5-46, 5-52, 5-63, 5-74 through 5-92, 9-1, 9-5; Tr. OR 265, 284-88,
324-26). One commenter said OSHA should make undercutting a recommended practice in the
final rule to allow for innovations in cutting techniques and to allow for consideration
of various production requirements for cutting certain types of wood (e.g., veneer).
Other commenters stated that OSHA should permit an exception to the undercut
requirement for manual felling of saplings or unmerchantable trees, that is, of trees with
a small diameter at breast height (DBH) (Ex. 5-21, 5-39, 5-46, 5-63, 5-74 through 5-92,
9-1, 9-5; Tr. OR 265, 284-88, 324-26). These commenters said that the hazards OSHA was
attempting to protect against do not exist for saplings, therefore, undercuts are not
necessary. For example, Mr. Alex Hanson, of AOL, stated:
On the smaller, nonmerchantable timber that's two, three, four, five, six inches,
generally not very tall, 20 foot or less or maybe taller, and when you slash it, you push
it over. It doesn't need a face to control the direction of fall.
* * *
[W]hen trees start getting to be merchantable size, then you have safety problems. You
get a seven inch or over tree, you want to know where it's going. You don't want to have
it just fall anywhere.
* * *
[Y]ou have to buck those merchantable trees. You have to cut the top out so you just
don't want them going everywhere. You want things in line. And if they're everywhere, then
it increases the risk for the buckers. Generally it's the same guy who is falling it, but
you want to have things in an orderly fashion so that he's not having to go everywhere to
buck the top. If they're just slashing it, it doesn't really matter where it goes because
you're not having to go out there and limb and cut the tops out and create another hazard
for yourself (Tr. OR 265, 284-88).
However, other commenters disagreed with AOL about what size tree requires an undercut.
One commenter said that undercuts are necessary for any tree that has more than a
three-inch base (Ex. 9-16), while another commenter said undercuts were not necessary for
trees with a seven-inch DBH (Tr. OR 421-22).
The APA, however, said that even trees with a small DBH should be undercut:
You heard from one of the associations who is recommending that with regard to what I
call undercuts, they're also called face cuts, that they not be required on very small
trees, and there was a discussion and possibly a recommendation of an 8-inch or 7-inch
size limit. Unfortunately, I don't have any data. But we do know and I will watch to see
if I can find any and submit it post hearing. I went through our files and could not find
anything. But it is our perception, after studying these operations, that a tree that's 8
inches in diameter at breast height is probably about 12 inches in diameter at the stump,
and whether it's an oak tree or a Douglas fir tree that's 60 feet tall and 8 inches and
12, it's a significant mass of wood that is difficult to control to get on the ground and
could cause and probably has caused injuries and maybe even deaths. There's enough mass
there with a 60-foot tree ripping down, uncontrolled in its fall, to cause a death. And
you heard from the Montana folks, that they have a little bit of a problem with that too
(Tr. OR 485-88).
Moreover, some commenters opposing the undercut requirement also admitted that
undercuts were necessary for any merchantable tree, regardless of its size. They said that
whenever a tree has a merchantable stem for a sawlog product, it must be undercut to
protect the fiber recovery (Tr. OR 422, 487-88). They said undercutting was essential both
for production reasons and safety considerations for employees bucking the felled tree.
After considering the evidence in the record, OSHA believes a provision requiring that
each tree manually felled be undercut is necessary to protect employees from injury.
According to the WIR survey, four percent of employees injured said they had been using
the wrong cutting method at the time of their accident (Ex. 2-1). The OSHA FCI report
indicated that 10 fellers were injured because of misjudgments in cutting the tree (Ex.
4-61).
As discussed above, undercutting helps protect the feller from injury by reducing the
potential for the tree splitting and falling in an unintended direction or kicking back
towards the feller. In the final rule, OSHA is also allowing an exception to the
undercutting requirement when the employer demonstrates that felling the particular tree
without an undercut will not create a hazard for an employee. OSHA believes that when the
hazards of splitting trees, tree kickback and misdirected falls are not present, it may be
appropriate to manually fell a tree without undercutting. OSHA notes that the employer
bears the burden of demonstrating that the hazards discussed in this section are not
present. OSHA also notes that the employers cannot make a blanket determination that trees
of a particular size never pose the hazards discussed above if manually felled without an
undercut. The condition of the tree and the surrounding area may make manually felling
even a small a tree hazardous if it is not first undercut. The tree and those conditions
must be assessed on a case by case basis to determine whether felling the tree without
making an undercut would create a hazard for an employee.
For two reasons, however, OSHA has decided against specifying an undercut exception for
trees of a certain size. First, there is no agreement among the commenters on what size
tree could be safely exempted from the undercutting requirement. There is evidence in the
record, that manually felling trees of the size that some commenters say should be
exempted from the requirement can pose a serious hazard to fellers (Tr. OR 265-69,
485-88). Also, while commenters agreed that unmerchantable trees did not require
undercutting, none agreed on what size tree constituted an unmerchantable tree. The
estimates of what sizes were considered to be merchantable trees varied greatly, from 3 to
10 inches DBH, depending on the type of wood being harvested (Ex. 5-46; Tr. OR 265,
485-88). And, as some commenters have pointed out, trees included in this range of sizes
can pose hazards to fellers.
Second, some commenters said that any tree that is considered merchantable is undercut,
even if it is within the range of sizes that commenters say should be exempted. According
to commenters the undercut is also made in merchantable trees to prevent splitting of the
product (Tr. OR 284-88). As such, undercutting may be done on small trees in any event.
OSHA does note that in many cases when trees are determined to be unmerchantable they
are not manually felled but rather slashed by mechanical means (Tr. OR 265, 268-69,
285-87, 421-22). This provision on undercutting does not apply to trees felled by
mechanical means.
b. Backcut requirement. The second issue regarding manual
felling on which OSHA requested comment was where backcuts should be required to be made.
In the proposed standard, OSHA required that backcuts be made above the horizontal cut of
the undercut. The 1978 ANSI logging and various State logging standards contain similar
requirements (e.g., Ex. 38K).
Several commenters supported the proposed requirement (Ex. 5-42, 9-15). These
commenters said a backcut above the horizontal cut is necessary to assure that the tree
does not fall in an unintended direction.
However, other commenters said OSHA should permit backcuts to be at the same level or
below the level of the undercut (Ex. 5-28, 5-29, 5-42, 5-52, 9-1; Tr. W2 229-31, OR
395-96, 421-24, 499-500). Some said that a same level backcut was more effective:
Backcuts should be made on the same level as the point of the notch of the undercut.
The hinge is what keeps the tree from kicking back, not the fact that the backcut is
higher than the undercut. High backcuts run the risk of cutting off the hinge, actually
increasing the danger of kickback (Ex. 5-52).
Other commenters said that backcuts above the horizontal cut were not as critical when
using the Humboldt undercutting method (Ex. 5-42, 9-15). They said that when the slanting
cut of the undercut is angled downward, the tree is more likely to fall in the intended
direction without kicking back. However, one of these commenters admitted that placing the
backcut at the same level as the horizontal cut when using the Humboldt undercut method
sacrificed safety for quality control:
Quality control concerns with several companies dictate that only Humboldt undercuts
are permissible with sawlog grade timber, so that wood loss is minimized by taking the
notch wood out of the stump. Quality control often dictates that there must be a flush
surface on the end of the log. To avoid having to make another cut to square up a log
butt, fallers will attempt to make their backcuts meet the horizontal face cut as closely
as possible. By doing this, they sacrifice the safety of the step that would have been
left on the stump to catch a possible backwards-moving tree butt, and depend only on the
downward-slanting face on the stump to hold the tree (Ex. 9-15).
Two commenters said the backcut requirement should be limited to those situations when
tree kickback is a problem, which they contended was only on steep terrain, when felling
uphill or through trees (Ex. 9-1, 9-4). Other commenters said that believed that the
standard should provide more flexibility because variations frequently found on logging
sites, such as lean of the tree and type of terrain, would make strict adherence to the
regulation difficult (Ex. 5-19, 9-9, 9-22; Tr. OR 206-7, 395-96). These commenters said
that the cutting decisions should be left to the judgment of the experienced feller.
After reviewing the evidence in the record, OSHA has decided that the proposed backcut
provisions are necessary to protect fellers from being hit or crushed by the tree they are
felling. As discussed above, the record shows that injuries and fatalities have occurred
because of improper cutting methods. The purpose of undercutting and backcutting trees is
to prevent the tree from splitting, felling an unintended direction or kicking back into
the feller. OSHA agrees with ANSI and the various State plan States that the proposed
backcut provisions are necessary to protect employees against these hazards.
OSHA does not agree that backcutting should be limited only to those situations when
tree kickback can occur. The record shows that hazards other than tree kickback
necessitate the backcut requirement. Without appropriately-placed backcuts, trees are more
likely to split and/or fall in an unintended direction. While OSHA agrees that it is more
likely that this could happen when trees are felled uphill, OSHA also believes the record
shows that the possibility exists regardless of the terrain. According to the WIR survey,
the single largest cause of injuries reported was being hit by a falling tree (Ex. 2-1).
Almost one-half of all injuries reported were due to employees being hit or crushed by a
falling tree.
In the final rule OSHA has provided an exception to the backcut requirement. The final
rule allows the backcut to be placed at or below the horizontal cut in tree pulling
operations. Various State logging standards also provide this exception to the backcut
requirement (e.g., Ex. 38K). OSHA believes this exception covers those situations in which
a special cutting technique may be required, such as by Federal agencies.
* * *
Section V: Summary and Explanation of the Final Standard
Paragraph (h) Tree Harvesting
* * *
Manual Felling
Paragraph (h)(2) of the final rule specifies various work practices for manual felling.
OSHA believes these provisions are essential to reduce the number of injuries that occur
during felling activities. According to the WIR survey, tree felling is the most dangerous
activity in the logging industry. Of those who reported injuries in the WIR survey, 23
percent were engaged in felling trees at the time.
OSHA's FCI report also indicates that felling operations are the most hazardous
operation in the logging industry (Ex. 4-61). The report indicated that 43 percent of all
employees who died did so when they were felling trees.
The State of Washington study indicated that more than 40 percent of employees killed
from 1977-83 were performing felling operations (Ex. 4-129). This study concluded that
many of the deaths would have been prevented had logging employees been following safe
work practices and had remained out of hazardous areas (e.g., adjacent occupied work
areas).
One commenter said that certain of the work practices proposed by OSHA should not be
required of each feller (Ex. 5-54). This commenter said the work practices did not take
into account the variation in feller experience, production requirements, and the trees
themselves. This commenter also said the work practice requirements did not allow for
innovations in felling technology and for recognition of other safe ways to perform
felling tasks. OSHA points out that these work practice requirements have been widely
recognized and accepted in the logging industry. Most of the State logging standards
contain most of these work practices (Ex. 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-23, 38J, 38K). These
requirements were included in OSHA's pulpwood logging standard, that adopted the 1971 ANSI
logging standard. In addition, these requirements were contained in the 1978 ANSI logging
standard. The ANSI standards are national consensus standards which were developed,
approved and followed by the logging industry itself. Presumably, they represent what the
industry has viewed to be necessary and reasonable to prevent injuries and deaths in this
high hazard industry.
In paragraph (h)(2)(i) of the final rule, OSHA requires that before a feller even
begins felling a tree, a retreat path must be planned and cleared. This provision also
requires that the retreat path extend diagonally away from the expected felling line. This
provision also includes an exception to the diagonal retreat path when the employer
demonstrates that in the particular situation such a retreat path is not feasible or poses
a greater hazard than an alternative retreat path. The proposed rule contained a
requirement for planning and clearing a retreat path before commencing cutting. However,
the proposed rule required that the retreat path "extend back and diagonally to the
rear" of the expected felling line. This language also was contained in the 1978 ANSI
logging standard.
One commenter contended that a diagonal retreat path may not lead to the safest
location in the felling area, therefore, it would be inappropriate for OSHA to designate a
required retreat direction in the standard (Ex. 5-35). The record shows that the clearance
of a retreat path so the feller is able to move rapidly and safely away from a falling
tree is essential to prevent injuries. According to the WIR survey, 24 percent of all
reported injuries resulted from being hit by a tree and half of these injuries involved
falling trees. OSHA believes there are many kinds of hazards that necessitate a quick and
clear retreat path. For example, the tree being felled can split and part of the tree may
then fall in an unexpected direction. In heavily wooded areas, the tree being felled can
strike another tree that can cause the first tree or parts of either tree to fall or fly
in an unexpected direction. In addition, planning and clearing a path prior to cutting a
tree is especially important when the terrain is covered with obstructions such as snow,
water or heavy undergrowth. These obstructions could cause the feller to be injured if
they impede the feller's ability to rapidly retreat or cause him to trip or fall. For
these reasons, OSHA has retained the requirement to plan and clear a retreat path before
felling the tree.
OSHA has addressed in the final rule the concerns raised by the commenter. As a general
rule, OSHA believes that a diagonal retreat path is the safest location in the felling
area. The ANSI standard, developed by persons experienced in the logging industry,
recognized that same general safe work practice. OSHA recognizes that when the retreat
path is planned prior to cutting, the employer may find that a diagonal retreat path poses
greater hazards than an alternative path. For example, excessive slopes, rocks or other
trees in the path of a diagonal retreat may create hazards that are not present in an
alternative retreat path. In such cases, the final rule permits the employee to use an
alternate retreat path.
OSHA notes that the employer bears the burden of demonstrating that the diagonal
retreat path poses a greater hazard. OSHA also notes that the exception is a case-by-case
determination. That is, the general rule requiring a diagonal retreat path is to be
applied in all manual felling activities. The exception only applies when the feller, in
planning a particular retreat path, determines that a diagonal retreat poses a greater
hazard.
Paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of the final rule requires that before each tree is felled,
conditions shall be evaluated in the work area and precautions taken so a hazard is not
created for an employee. Conditions that must be evaluated include, but are not limited
to, snow and ice accumulation, wind, lean of the tree, dead limbs and location of other
trees. This provision parallels the requirement contained in the proposed rule and the
1978 ANSI logging standard.
OSHA did not receive any comments opposing this provision. Many commenters discussed
the hazardous nature of working conditions in the logging industry, and noted that these
conditions are constantly changing (Ex. 5-12, Tr. W1 76, 88). Because conditions can
change with each tree that is being felled, it is important that the feller assess in
advance the conditions and hazards that may be present. In order for fellers to understand
what conditions and hazards may be present and must be appraised, it is important that the
employer should include this discussion in training sessions and monthly safety and health
meetings.
Paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of the final rule requires that each tree be checked for
accumulations of snow or ice. This provision also requires that accumulations of snow and
ice that may create a hazard for an employee must be removed before felling is started in
the area or the area must be avoided. This provision parallels the requirement contained
in the proposed rule.
One commenter said that this provision would require logging establishments to cease
felling operations during winter months (Ex. 5-51). OSHA does not agree with the
characterization that the commenters draw about the proposed rule. OSHA is aware that
logging operations are carried out in many types of weather conditions. OSHA does not
believe that this provision requires logging operations to close down during the winter.
However, when accumulations of snow and ice may create a hazard for an employee, that
hazard must be removed or avoided. The record shows that removing or avoiding hazardous
accumulations of snow and ice is necessary to protect logging employees from injury.
According to the WIR survey, six percent of employees injured said that weather conditions
such as snow and ice had contributed to their accident (Ex. 2-1).
Paragraph (h)(2)(iv) of the final rule requires that when a spring pole or other tree
is under stress, no employee other than the feller may be closer than two tree lengths
when the stress is released. This provision was included in the proposed rule, however,
the proposed rule did not require that employees be at least two tree lengths away.
Rather, it required that employees be in the clear when the stress is released.
Various commenters recommended that OSHA establish a uniform minimum safe distance for
all work areas (Ex. 5-18, 5-21, 5-34, 5-36, 5-39, 5-63, 5-74 through 5-92; Tr. W2 163,
197). OSHA agrees with these commenters and has included a minimum two tree-length
distance in this provision. The record shows that this distance is necessary to protect
employees from being injured or killed by trees under stress. According to the WIR survey,
11 percent of employees who reported injuries said that wood being under tension had
contributed to their accident (Ex. 2-1). The OSHA FCI report indicated that four employees
were killed when they were struck by propelled or whiplashing tree limbs (Ex. 4-61).
Paragraphs (h)(2)(v), (vi) and (vii) require undercutting and backcutting of each tree
being felled.
In paragraph (h)(2)(v) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that each tree being felled
be undercut unless the employer demonstrates that felling the particular tree without an
undercut will not create a hazard for an employee. This paragraph also requires that the
undercut be of a size so the tree will not split and will fall in the intended direction.
The proposed rule contained a provision requiring undercutting of each tree being felled,
however, the proposed provision did not provide for any exceptions. OSHA received many
comments on this provision, which have been discussed above in the Major Issues section.
At paragraphs (h)(2)(vi) and (vii) of the final rule, OSHA is requiring that each tree
be backcut. OSHA is also requiring that the backcut allow for sufficient hinge wood to
guide the tree and prevent it from prematurely slipping or twisting off the trunk. OSHA is
requiring that the backcut be above the horizontal cut of the undercut. In the final rule,
OSHA is allowing one exception to the backcut requirements. In tree pulling operations,
the backcut may be at or below the horizontal cut of the undercut. The proposed rule also
contained provision requiring backcutting of each tree being felled. The proposed rule did
not allow any exceptions to the backcut requirement. OSHA received many comments on these
provisions, which have been discussed above in the Major Issues section.
* * *
Back