Final answer:
It is true that a fall protection plan must document why conventional systems are infeasible or pose a greater hazard if it deviates from standard measures. The plan must outline alternate safety measures and ensure a sufficient level of safety is maintained. This approach aligns with prudent risk management practices.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that a fall protection plan that deviates from conventional systems must document the reasons why the conventional systems are either infeasible or pose a greater hazard is true. Occupational safety and health regulations typically require that when an employer cannot implement standard fall protection measures, they must develop a written site-specific fall protection plan that outlines the alternative measures being used. This plan must also detail why regular measures cannot be employed and demonstrate that the alternative provides a sufficient level of safety.
For instance, in construction, if conventional fall protection systems like guardrails, safety nets, or personal arrest systems are not practical due to the specific nature of the work, the plan must explain this. It must also lay out the methods that will be used to reduce falls or minimize hazards associated with falls, such as using positioning device systems or fall restraint systems that may be more suitable to the unique circumstances.
Drawing an analogy to Figure 20.1, which discusses asymmetric risk, the implementation of Plan B (the unconventional fall protection measures) can be seen as a way to mitigate a potential catastrophic outcome (workers falling) even if it may not be ideal or the conventional approach. This demonstrates a conservative approach to risk management where the priority is to safeguard individuals' safety over sticking with traditional, but possibly impractical or more dangerous, methods.