Three construction workers were injured as the forms for the concrete floor they were pouring collapsed. Read more at http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090428/NEWS01/904280360/1008/NEWS01/Floor+collapses+at+arena+site
FRANKFORT, KY – (April 27, 2009) – As the spring weather warms, more and more homeowners and business owners are contracting with individuals and repair companies to fix roof damage caused by severe winter and early spring weather. And, as construction season heats up, the use of elevated working structures is increasing as well. With that comes the increased likelihood that many contractors and workers may not be following safety guidelines when working high above the ground.
Kentucky Labor Cabinet Secretary J.R. Gray said the Kentucky Occupational Safety and Health (KyOSH) division is receiving numerous reports each day of workers atop homes and buildings without proper roof fall protection or safe elevated work platforms. That, he said, violates state regulations and is very dangerous.
“We are getting multiple calls everyday from passersby telling us there are workers on a roof without any fall protection whatsoever,” said Gray. “And, with the increased number of remodeling and construction projects now underway, improper use of scaffolds and ladders has become a problem as well. That is unacceptable and our KyOSH compliance investigators will take action to make sure those workers are properly protected.”
In fact, an apparent scaffold accident occurred in downtown Louisville Monday morning sending several people to the hospital. The incident is under investigation but points to the need for employers and employees to be careful when working on ladders, scaffolds or on rooftops.
Since Jan. I, 2008, approximately 248 fall protection and fall protection training violations have been cited in Kentucky. The total penalties for those violations have been in excess of $565,300, according to KyOSH.
More importantly, there have been 9 fall fatalities and 30 instances of hospitalizations resulting from falls reported to OSH during that time.
KyOSH compliance director Susan Draper says inspectors can cite employers for willful and serious violations of statutes and regulations governing roof fall protection and use of elevated working platforms.
“Violating those laws and regulations can become costly to the employer,” said Draper. “Fines can be as much as $7,000 per serious violation and tens of thousands of dollars for willful serious violations. But the most important part of this is the danger to the workers. Without proper fall protection and training, even putting shingles on a one-story home can be deadly.”
Free safety seminars are conducted by KyOSH. Visit http://www.labor.ky.gov/osh/educationtraining/trainingprograms/pct.htm to learn more about dates and times of classes available.
The contractor rebuilding a bridge over the Housatonic River in the Falls Village section of Canaan, Conn., has been cited by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for 13 alleged willful and serious violations of construction safety standards.The Brunalli Construction Co. of Southington, Conn., faces $180,950 in proposed fines for allegedly failing to protect its employees against fall, drowning and other hazards at the Route 7 jobsite.
A December 2008 OSHA inspection found employees exposed to falls of up to 43 feet into the river while working without fall protection on unprotected or inadequately guarded sections of the bridge and using an access ladder of inadequate height. They also were exposed to drowning hazards due to the lack of life jackets, ring buoys and a lifesaving skiff that are required to be used and readily available on site when employees work over water.
“The significant hazard of a four-story plunge was exacerbated by the lack of required lifesaving rescue equipment,” said C. William Freeman III, OSHA’s area director in Hartford. “While it’s fortunate no fall or drowning occurred, the potential for a fatal or serious accident was real and present at this jobsite.”
As a result, OSHA issued Brunalli Construction three willful citations, with $147,000 in proposed fines, for the fall, drowning and ladder hazards and 10 serious citations, with $33,950 in proposed fines, for additional fall-related hazards, puncture and laceration hazards from a damaged cable guardrail system, no hardhats for employees exposed to overhead hazards, amputation and laceration hazards from unguarded grinders, and no trained emergency responders on site.
A search of the OSHA website revealed that The Brunalli Construction Company had received a serious citation for “Duty to have Fall Protection” in 2005 that was negotiated down to $2,520 from the initial penalty of $4,200.
OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health. OSHA issues serious citations when death or serious physical harm is likely to result from hazards about which the employer knew or should have known. Detailed information about fall hazards and safeguards is available on OSHA’s Web site at www.osha.gov/SLTC/fallprotection/index.html.
OSHA has proposed $118,650 in fines against 4 Brothers Stucco Co., a Cleveland, Tenn., stucco contractor, for 15 alleged repeat and serious violations of safety standards at a Torrington, Conn., worksite.OSHA’s inspection found employees working on scaffolding, in an aerial lift and on the roof at the 492 East Main St. worksite, were exposed to falls of up to 22 feet. The inspection also identified electrical, overhead and chemical hazard communication deficiencies at the worksite.
“These sizable fines reflect both the seriousness and recurring nature of several of the conditions cited here,” said C. William Freeman III, OSHA’s area director in Hartford. “Keep in mind that falls are the number one killer in construction work and can occur in an instant. Be it a scaffold, an aerial lift or a roof, proper and effective fall protection must be in place and in use at all times.”Specifically, 4 Brothers, which also operates as VP Stucco Co. Inc., was issued six repeat citations, with $84,000 in proposed penalties, for no fall protection for employees in an aerial lift; lack of guardrails on the scaffold; employees climbing the scaffold’s side and cross braces; employees not trained to recognize scaffold hazards; no protective helmets; and failing to have the scaffold erected and dismantled under the supervision of a competent person. A review of the OSHA website shows OSHA had cited the company in 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2008 for similar hazards at other worksites. Some of these inspections resulted in repeat violations as well.
The Torrington inspection also resulted in nine serious citations, with $34,650 in proposed penalties, for employees working on a roof without fall protection; an improperly supported scaffold; unguarded walkways between scaffolds; using an ungrounded extension cord to power a mixing drill; and lack of a hazard communication program, training, material safety data sheets, and protective gloves for employees working with cement and hazardous chemicals. OSHA issues serious citations when death or serious physical harm is likely to result from hazards about which the employer knew or should have known.
OSHA posted a Letter of Interpretation to its website on February 10th clarifying the use of shock-absorbing lanyards in the construction industry when used in conjunction with an aerial lift. OSHA’s Directorate of Construction Acting Director Noah Connell said in the letter dated January 14, 2009 that some shock-absorbing lanyards do not provide adequate fall protection as required by 29 CFR Section 1926.502.
The questioner wrote in a letter to OSHA asking about a particular shock-absorbing lanyard with a manufacturer-required minimum anchor point elevation of 18.5 feet. The writer asked, “My concern centers around the fact that, when raising an employee from a work surface, or upon returning an employee to a work surface, the employee at times will be at elevations that are less than [18.5] feet. . . . Since at times the distance between a lift’s work platform and a lower level will be less than [18.5] feet, does the manufacturer’s instruction regarding the minimum anchor point elevation preclude its use as part of a fall protection system in an aerial lift?”
Connell answered that 29 CFR Section 1926.502(d)(16(iii) requires a personal fall arrest system to prevent employees from contacting a lower level, which the lanyard in question would not do at heights less than 18.5 feet. In addition, 29 CFR Section 1926.453(b)(2)(v) requires fall protection for employees in aerial lifts at lesser heights as well. “Since the fall protection system you describe would not meet the requirements of [Section] 1926.502(d)(16)(iii) under these conditions, it would be prohibited,” he wrote.
Connell said that there are a variety of self-retracting lanyards available for fall protection, some with an operating range of more than 100 feet and a capability of limiting a free-fall distance to less than two feet. If one of these type lanyards were used in the scenario described, with the lanyard rigged so that the free-fall distance of the employee in the aerial lift was limited to two feet, the system would meet the requirements of Section 1926.502(d)(16)(iii), he said.Connell issued a caution noting the vertical and lateral loads that may be placed on an aerial lift in the event of an arrested fall must be considered. Load requirements for anchorages come into play when fall arrest systems in aerial lifts are anchored to the lift’s boom or basket, and the length of the free fall permitted by a self-retracting lanyard may affect whether a personal fall arrest system complies with Section 1926.502(d)(15).
Connell wrote, “The longer the fall, the greater the impact forces imparted to the system”. “Thus, the more free-fall allowed by the self-retracting lanyard, the greater the load imposed upon the aerial lift. Some aerial lifts may lack the capacity to withstand the vertical and lateral loads caused by an arrested fall. Therefore, the length of free fall permitted by the self-retracting lanyard must be such that the aerial lift is capable of maintaining a safety factor of at least two when it arrests a fall.”
It should be noted that a restraint system using a body belt or body harness could be used instead of a personal fall arrest system if a self-retracting lanyard cannot be rigged to satisfy Section 1926.502(d)(15), as long as the system is rigged to prevent the employee from falling.Employers have a responsibility to ensure that workers are protected by performing periodic inspections of fall protection equipment, performing job hazard analysis prior to engaging in dangerous worksite activities, and to train workers on the proper use of fall-protection equipment. Fall protection is the second most frequently violated standard and is the standard for which OSHA assessed the highest penalties for fiscal year 2008.To see the letter of interpretion go to http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=27382
