Des Moines Personal Injury Lawyer - iosh

Man killed in plant explosion, sparks or static electricity?

Steve Lombardi — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:01:00 GMT

In Columbia County, Wisconsin a 47 year old man died Sunday October 18^th, in an explosion in the American Packaging Corporation plant, according to the Wisconsin State Journal news source. Jeffrey Doxtator was from Columbus and had worked at the plant for 13 years. Fire Chief Randy Koehn said that Doxtator was using a handheld grinder which ignited sparks in an area of the plant designated hazardous. This employee error is thought to have caused the explosion and not the lack of safety precautions by the company. The Wisconsin plant has had good safety history according to electronic federal safety records.

At the time of the blast, 6pm, the only other workers in the building were the maintenance and janitorial crew, which evacuated the building. Doxtator, still in the building, was rescued by the firefighters and brought to Columbus Community Hospital. The coroner indicated Doxtator’s death to be from “multiple internal injuries due to blunt force trauma from the explosion.” The cost of the explosion to the building is estimated at $1.2 million.

American Packaging Corporation is privately held and has three plant locations: Columbia County, Wisconsin; Story City, Iowa; and the headquarters in Rochester, N.Y. The corporation produces specialty packaging for consumer goods.

At the time this blog was written the investigation of the Sunday explosion was still underway.

I'm not sure the error can be said to be that of the employee. That conclusion was stated as a fact at a time when no investigation had taken place. It would be important to know what actually caused the explosion: the tool being used may have had no effect on causing an explosion. Also I'd want to know who provided the tools, who selected the tools, what warnings were given about using tools in this area of the plant, whether it had been done previously without incident and with management's knowledge, the exact location and makeup of this department along with a whole host of other issues to be explored. I just don't agree with the conclusion reached by the news paper reporter or whoever decided what the cause of the explosion. There is more to it than a cursory examination would show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TcNDozWQiM

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Electrolux Iowa Plant Closings, Exporting America’s Middle Class

Steve Lombardi — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:15:45 GMT

Can a community that has no manufacturing base sustain a middle class?

Electrolux is closing its Iowa operations and with those closings taking 850 jobs to a place called Juarez, Mexico. On the news tonight they showed workers upset over the introduction of a security company checking lunch pails for probably weapons. That’s a good thing really. Because if I worked there for 20 years and just had the rug pulled out from under me I might consider going to work with a loaded revolver. So the rest of you workers calm down about the security and focus on the real problem, Congressmen and Congresswomen taking campaign contributions from companies that afterwards ship jobs overseas or out of this country. What the workers need to do is demand an answer, the real answer, as to why these jobs are being shipped out of this country. It seems our Congress is either powerless, mindless or bought and paid for when it comes to shipping jobs outside of this country.

“Politics is a pendulum whose swings between anarchy and tyranny are fueled by perpetually rejuvenated illusions.” Albert Einstein

The Schedule: Electrolux in Jefferson, Iowa is moving 850 jobs to Mexico by 2011. The Electrolux Major Appliances North America operations are consolidating its North American laundry manufacturing into one facility in Juarez, Mexico. The Webster City operation will close in the first quarter of 2011 and the Jefferson, Iowa satellite facility in the fourth quarter of 2010.

Here is a quote from the MSNBC story Electrolux To Move 850 Jobs to Mexico:

“This was a difficult but necessary decision,” said Frank Wagner, Vice President, Operations, Electrolux Major Appliances North America. “Electrolux is aware of the impact this decision will have on our employees and their communities. The company will be taking steps to assist employees with this difficult transition and will work with local and state officials to ensure that all training resources are made available to our employees.”

That’s an understatement and no Frank I don’t think it was a difficult and necessary decision. Electrolux just announced its 3rd quarter profit showed a 93% rise even though in general there is weak demand for appliances. Electrolux 3Q profit rises 93 percent, October 26, 2009 The most difficult part of this decision is how all of you get out of town with your skin intact. You just took 450 jobs in Spain last week and sent them where? And that’s the reason for the security at the plant. Your brain tells you this isn’t the right thing to do but for whatever financial reason 850 Iowans get shafted and lose their jobs. They give you years of their sweat, blood and tears and what are you giving them in return. Nada.

I see Kelly Ripma is your spokesperson. How about if we not just boycott what you make but also what she sells. As she says in the ad for winning a double wall oven, that sounds like the way to “plan the perfect party.” Like I said, no wonder you have beefed up the plant security.

Do you think we don’t know this game? Did you forget that Newton, Iowa most recently lost over 2,000 jobs when Maytag closed in Newton? (Whirlpool Corp.) Electrolux cities told to market plant sites, Des Moines Register, October 25, 2009. The company says it’s doing very well financially so why the move? What gives Mr. Wagner? Maybe you’re not the guy to ask. Perhaps it’s the CEO Hans Straberg sitting comfortably in some corporate office planning his next bonus.

Electrolux is a world leading international appliance company. We are a part in the daily life of hundreds of millions of families around the world.

"Each year, some 40 million consumers in more than 150 countries choose our products, such as cookers and cooktops, ovens, fridges and freezers, dishwashers, washing machines, tumble dryers, room air conditioners and vacuum cleaners. That translates to two products bought from us every second, every day of the year." Electrolux Corporate Website quote.

From your most recent press release this is all about margins and martini's with you CEOs. That and your next bonus check. How much are the board’s big fat bonuses for 2009 going to be? It’s not longer about the people in the community, the workers that build the products or their families. It’s all about you.

And corporate America wonders why this next generation shows no loyalty or work ethic?

Third quarter results clearly demonstrate our potential

26 Oct, 2009 07:51

Today I am presenting very strong results for the third quarter. We have succeeded in reaching an operating margin of more than 8%. I am very pleased that all Electrolux operations have been successful in this challenging market. Market demand continues to be weak, although the rate of decline has slowed down.

The results show that we are capable of increasing our margins. At the same time, we have to be realistic and understand that a lot of work remains before these levels are sustainable.

Almost everything went our way this quarter. Cyclical trough in commodity prices and maintained prices have been decisive for our earnings improvement. Other contributing factors are a better product mix and significant cost reductions.

Electrolux Financial Statement

If you leave off the return on equity for 2008, 2008 was a bad year for everyone; Electrolux’s ROE is over 20% on average for the period 2004 through 2007. Greed is the only thing we Iowans can see driving this decision; plain and simple it’s about greed of a few that leaves the middle class behind.

I’ve seen it since 1981 from a front row seat in Waterloo and the John Deere employees, the American middle class is being dismantled. It’s being shipped overseas and down south. If a country doesn’t have manufacturing jobs they soon don’t have a middle class and class warfare can’t be far behind. If you and the other plant closing CEO’s are wondering why there are so many people running around this country wanting to wage war over the right to carry firearms, just stop and consider the bigger picture from the viewpoint of a family of five just trying to put food on the table. All they can think of is where Sam Colt is when you need him?

U.S. Chamber of Communist Commerce and the Un-American Tort Reform Association Sit on the Sidelines Saying Nothing - Perhaps they speak only in Spanish and Chinese

My advice to Iowans is to buy American-made goods. Don't buy cars, appliances or any other products that aren't made in America by the American worker. Why don’t we have our own website for American made goods?

And once again I ask, why is the American Tort Reform Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce so quiet? Why don't they have anything to say about the loss of American jobs? Isn't it the United States Chamber of Commerce? Or is this really a communist-like organization interested only in the wealth of a few who own and run companies out of America? Your two organizations are truly the great illusionists. The comment section is below...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ7JV0B1eAY

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Waterloo, Iowa fall into water tower, worker not yet identified

Steve Lombardi — Fri, 08 May 2009 23:15:00 GMT

We have previously reported on a maintenance worker falling from a water tower into the tower itself. Today we report on another incident in Waterloo, Iowa where the same thing occurred. This time it took an hour to rescue the man. The maintenance worker was sandblasting the inside of the water tower. His name or condition or injuries were not released. The man fell 30 feet so that would require a fall protection plan and harness.

KCCI also covered this story although they have few additional facts.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Clear Lake company issued a fine for the death of a worker who fell into an open hopper

Steve Lombardi — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:41:52 GMT

Clear Lake company issued a fine for the death of a worker who fell into an open hopper

IOSH, or OSHA as it's most commonly called fined a Clear Lake company $357,000 for an accident that killed an employee. The Des Moines Register article indicates this is the second time an open hopper unprotected by guardrails has been the issue of a citation. The worker that died is 35, Simon Trinidad. He's entitled to receive at the very least workers' compensation death benefits. If he was married or had dependents they too are entitled to benefits.

"The Iowa Occupational Safety and Health Bureau said employees were exposed to the 12-foot deep, open hopper that was unprotected by guardrails. The company was cited in 2006 for the same violation."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-aFFFci4cY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNB-QNeaHDU

Worker safety is an important tool of the trades. Know the rules and protect yourself from injury and death following a fall into an open pit or hopper. Although these video clips are about scaffolding the rules are applicable to open pits with risk of falling.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Construction Site Regulations - Iowa - Sling Safety and Preventing Injury

Steve Lombardi — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 08:00:00 GMT

Iowa Construction Site Injuries – Safe and effective use of slings

Reported in the online Gazette, Blahnik Construction (Iowa Corp. No. 139932) was fined $7,000.00 for an incident in which two employees were injured when slings being used to lift a 12,000 pound compressor in an elevator shaft broke. The full article doesn’t report the sections of OSHA regulations that were allegedly violated. The two employees were apparently pinned by the compressor when it fell. No report as to how far it fell or how stout the slings were that they were being using. Blahnik Construction Company is a corporation registered to do business in the State of Iowa. The Iowa Secretary of State’s website shows it to be a Code 490 Domestic Profit business with it’s home office at 150 50^th Ave. Drive SW, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52404. It’s been on file since December 29, 1989. The registered agent is Terry M. Kohout of the same address. The president is Timothy T. French of the same address.

Blahnik Construction has its own website wherein the company prides itself on having provided construction services for over 75 years. A company with that kind of history is one that would certainly be the kind encouraging employee training.

Welcome...

For over 75 years, Blahnik Construction Company has been providing commercial and industrial construction, plus equipment installation and maintenance services.

Blahnik Construction offers a total construction solution. Our qualifications include:

· A professional office staff and the area's most experienced field staff

· New and well maintained equipment to complete your project efficiently and economically

· A full service fabrication shop, producing structural and miscellaneous metals of all types

· A state of the art information management system, providing a full range of project management and accounting functions

· A never ending commitment to safety and employee training

· The ability to provide 24 hour operations to accommodate the most demanding schedules and client requirements

· In-house design capabilities

· The experience gained over 75 years of continuous operation

Why Blahnik?

Blahnik Construction has been building relationships for over three-fourths of a century. During that time we have focused on our clients expectations, offering personal, professional service at a competitive price. We have a thorough knowledge of the industries, businesses, facilities, and personnel that comprise the Eastern Iowa Market. We are committed to maintaining our reputation as a leading commercial and industrial contractor.

The Iowa Workers’ Compensation decisions show one case wherein Blahnik Construction is mentioned. Merle Wilson vs. SG Junker & Associates, April 17, 2001, File No. 1252806, Arbitration Decision by the Deputy. You can obtain a pdf version of the decision by following this link.

In Merle vs. SG Junker & Associates the following passage mentions Blahnik Construction:

"After the claimant's recovery from the surgery for the work injury and full release to return to work, the claimant began work for Blahnik Construction Company in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, at their work site for Quaker Oats Company. The claimant started work on October 4, 1999, for Blahnik and his rate of pay is $21.02 per hour. His job title now is millwright foreman. This new job does not require the claimant to lift although the claimant does keep his toolbox at work. He has only used that toolbox on about a dozen occasions since he began work there.

The claimant thinks that if he were no longer able to work as a millwright foreman and had to go back to working as a millwright, he would not be able to do the work because of the back surgery.

Since the surgery the claimant no longer golfs, boats, camps, or ice fishes. He feels he is no longer as attentive to his children and that he doesn't wrestle with his son any longer. The claimant realizes that he does not have restrictions but is concerned that he may hurt himself again and wouldn't be able to provide for his family. He sometimes still experiences back pain."

Sling safety on the OSHA site is discussed in detail and has been created due to the number of injuries caused by the moving of materials using improper methods.

Introduction to Sling Safety

To varying degrees, all employees in numerous workplaces take part in materials handling. Consequently, some employees are injured. In fact, the mishandling of materials is the single largest cause of accidents and injuries in the workplace. Most of these accidents and injuries, as well as the pain and loss of salary and productivity that often result, can be readily avoided. Whenever possible, mechanical means should be used to move materials to avoid employee injuries such as muscle pulls, strains, and sprains. In addition, many loads are too heavy and/or bulky to be safely moved manually. Various types of equipment, therefore, have been designed specifically to aid in the movement of materials: cranes, derricks, hoists, powered industrial trucks, and conveyors.

Workers should not be cutting corners or moving materials when they are not familiar with proper material handling techniques. To know how to move materials safely you need to know sling types.

Sling Types

The dominant characteristics of a sling are determined by the components of that sling. For example, the strengths and weaknesses of a wire rope sling are essentially the same as the strengths and weaknesses of the wire rope of which it is made.

Slings are generally one of six types: chain, wire rope, metal mesh, natural fiber rope, synthetic fiber rope, or synthetic web. In general, use and inspection procedures tend to place these slings into three groups: chain, wire rope and mesh, and fiber rope web. Each type has its own particular advantages and disadvantages. Factors to consider when choosing the best sling for the job include the size, weight, shape, temperature, and sensitivity of the material to be moved, as well as the environmental conditions under which the sling will be used.

If your employer doesn’t have someone knowledgeable about slings ask to be sent to a school for additional training. Training will help you to better understand safe lifting practices; size, weight, and center of gravity of the load; number of legs and angle with the horizontal, rated capacity of the sling; history or care and usage of the sling you’re being asked to use; proper maintenance of slings, chains, wire ropes and fiber & synthetic ropes. It’s always better to admit you’re not sure of how to safely do the job and to ask for training than to guess wrong. Employers would be wise to encourage safety programs that educate workers on safe material handling methods.

Training and Education

OSHA's area offices offer a variety of information services, such as publications. audiovisual aids, technical advice. and speakers special engagements. OSHA's Training Institute in Des Plaines, IL, provides basic and advanced courses in safety and health for federal and state compliance officers, state consultants, federal agency personnel, and private sector employers, employees, and their representatives.

OSHA also provides funds to nonprofit organizations. through grants, to conduct workplace training and education in subjects where OSHA believes there is a lack of workplace training. Grants are awarded annually. Grant recipients are expected to contribute 20 percent of the total grant cost.

For more information on grants, training and education, contact the OSHA Training Institute, Office of Training and Education, 1555 Times Drive. Des Plaines, IL 60018, (847) 297-4810. For further information on any OSHA program contact your nearest OSHA area or regional office listed at the end of this booklet.

The OSHA standard that applies is 1910.184. That standard has to do with rating capacity testing of slings and how much weight slings can safely handle. What follows is a memorandum from 1988 discussing sling rating safety issues.

The questions posed by your memorandum of June 7, 1988, are answered as follows:

1. The proof testing of slings is the responsibility of the sling manufacturer or equivalent entity as delineated by the standard at 29 CFR 1910.184(e)(4), (g)(5), and (i)(8)(ii). The employer shall retain a "certificate of proof test" and shall make it available for examination by OSHA compliance officers.

It is believed that any proof load testing of workplace slings by other than the manufacturer or equivalent entity is an unacceptable loading and would necessitate that the sling be taken out of service unless written permission to test is obtained form the sling manufacturer. Users of slings must not exceed the sling manufacturer's specifications and requirements pertaining to use and loadings.

The requirements imposed by the Boeing Company upon their subcontractors to repeatedly proof test slings to two (2) times rated load is not a recognized inspection procedure under the OSHA standards and would be a violation of 29 CFR 1910.184 (c)(4). However, should the sling manufacturer provide written permission to test the slings on a regular basis to a load greater than the designated working load, OSHA could consider the violation de minimus. Of course the procedures for such testing would also need to comply with the manufacturer's recommendations.

The repeated testing of spreader bars and similar equipment seems to provide little more assurance of continued reliability than the visual inspections required by the various standards, including OSHA's. Properly conducted visual inspections together with the careful reporting of misuse and various damaging exposures will provide for the continued reliability of the lifting equipment. Should periodic load testing be desired, it is recommended that slings be returned to the manufacturer or equivalent entity for the conduct of detailed inspection and load tests.

2. 29 CFR 1910.184(c)(4) prohibits loading any sling beyond the rated capacity.

3. Only the manufacturer or equivalent entity are permitted to proof test and certify.

4. Certification is exclusively the right of only the manufacturer of new slings. Repaired slings may be certified by an equivalent entity who made the repairs.

June 7, 1988

If a sling is damaged or worn it should never again be used. Throw it away and get a new one. If a sling is involved in an incident or accident don’t use it again.

A mandatory requirement in those regulations is that "Slings that are damaged or defective shall not be used." Obviously, following such a rule calls for frequent careful inspections. In the same regulation, and again in 29 CFR 1926.251 ("Rigging Equipment"), OSHA prescribes these inspection requirements:

"Each day before being used, the sling and all fastenings and attachments shall be inspected for damage or defect by a competent person designated by the employer. Additional inspections shall be performed during sling use, where service conditions warrant. Damaged or defective slings shall be immediately removed from service."

B30.16 applies to the construction, installation, operation, inspection, testing, and maintenance of hand chain-operated chain hoists and electric and air-powered chain and wire ropes hoists used for, but not limited to, vertical lifting and lowering of freely suspended, unguided, loads which consist of equipment and materials. Requirements for a hoist that is used for a special purpose, such as, but not limited to, tensioning a load, nonvertical lifting service, lifting a guided load, lifting personnel, or drawing both the load and the hoist up or down the load chain or rope when the hoist is attached to the load, are not included in this volume. (J11607)

There should be a documented history of inspections. If not you’ve got trouble brewing. Iowa has an approved plan. Simply phone 515-284-4794 or 515-281-5352.

Inspection history

All slings should have a documented inspection history, and be labeled with a durable tag permanently attached. Remember that the annual inspection interval is a maximum. Hard usage, or the first appearance of trouble at daily inspection, will justify closer surveillance. For any "thorough" inspection, follow the recommendations of ASME B30.16 (see box) and of the hoist or sling manufacturer.

Visit the U.S. Department of Labor website and learn as much as you can about the equipment you use during construction jobs. Be safe rather than sorry. I've seen too many workers with high paying jobs lost due to a permanent injury and not speaking up when safety education was lacking.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Construction Safety - Construction Accidents: Scaffolding Safety Requirements

Steve Lombardi — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 09:15:00 GMT

Two more workers have been injured on the construction site of the new K-8 school building under construction in Shenandoah. IOSH (Iowa's version of OSHA) and OSHA will investigate. Radio Iowa reports this is the second accident in which workers have been injured. In this most recent incident some scaffolding collapsed.

Whatever company is the general contractor needs to take charge and enforce safety rules for the protection of the workers. OSHA has specific rules to follow for scaffolding. Here are some general rules to follow when using scaffolding:

General Rules for scaffolding use:

- The wheels must be locked and rigid before climbing on the scaffolding.

- Persons using the scaffolding keep their center of gravity above the scaffolding.

- Scaffolding shall not be moved with someone on it.

- Scaffolding construction shall include all pins, braces and bolts.

- Planks and walk boards shall always be at least 36 inches below the top of the scaffolding.

- People shall not work below or in the fall-zone of the scaffolding.

- The “steps” on the side of the scaffolding shall be in a line.

OSHA has specific rules related to scaffolding use. For the lawyers here is are the relevant sections to review.

1910.28(a)(1)

Scaffolds shall be furnished and erected in accordance with this standard for persons engaged in work that cannot be done safely from the ground or from solid construction, except that ladders used for such work shall conform to 1910.25 and 1910.26.

1910.28(a)(2)

The footing or anchorage for scaffolds shall be sound, rigid, and capable of carrying the maximum intended load without settling or displacement. Unstable objects such as barrels, boxes, loose brick, or concrete blocks shall not be used to support scaffolds or planks.

1910.28(a)(5)

Scaffolds and other devices mentioned or described in this section shall be maintained in safe condition. Scaffolds shall not be altered or moved horizontally while they are in use or occupied.

1910.28(a)(6)

Any scaffold damaged or weakened from any cause shall be immediately repaired and shall not be used until repairs have been completed.

1910.28(a)(17)

Scaffolds shall be provided with a screen between the toeboard and the guardrail, extending along the entire opening, consisting of No. 18 gauge U.S. Standard Wire one-half-inch mesh or the equivalent, where persons are required to work or pass under the scaffolds.

1910.28(a)(20)

Tools, materials, and debris shall not be allowed to accumulate in quantities to cause a hazard.

1910.28(a)(22)

Wire or fiber rope used for scaffold suspension shall be capable of supporting at least six times the intended load.

1910.28(d)

"Tubular welded frame scaffolds."

1910.28(d)(1)

Metal tubular frame scaffolds, including accessories such as braces, brackets, trusses, screw legs, ladders, etc., shall be designed and proved to safely support four times the maximum intended load.

1910.28(d)(2)

Spacing of panels or frames shall be consistent with the loads imposed.

..1910.28(d)(3)

1910.28(d)(3)

Scaffolds shall be properly braced by cross bracing or diagonal braces, or both, for securing vertical members together laterally, and the cross braces shall be of such length as will automatically square and aline vertical members so that the erected scaffold is always plumb, square, and rigid. All brace connections shall be made secure.

1910.28(d)(4)

Scaffold legs shall be set on adjustable bases or plain bases placed on mud sills or other foundations adequate to support the maximum intended load.

1910.28(d)(5)

The frames shall be placed one on top of the other with coupling or stacking pins to provide proper vertical alinement of the legs.

1910.28(d)(6)

Where uplift may occur, panels shall be locked together vertically by pins or other equivalent suitable means.

1910.28(d)(7)

Guardrails not less than 2 x 4 inches or the equivalent and not less than 36 inches or more than 42 inches high, with a mid-rail, when required, of 1- x 4-inch lumber or equivalent, and toeboards, shall be installed at all open sides on all scaffolds more than 10 feet above the ground or floor. Toeboards shall be a minimum of 4 inches in height. Wire mesh shall be installed in accordance with paragraph (a)(17) of this section.

1910.28(d)(8)

All tubular metal scaffolds shall be constructed and erected to support four times the maximum intended loads.

..1910.28(d)(9)

1910.28(d)(9)

To prevent movement, the scaffold shall be secured to the building or structure at intervals not to exceed 30 feet horizontally and 26 feet vertically.

1910.28(d)(10)

Maximum permissible spans of planking shall be in conformity with paragraph (a)(9) of this section.

1910.28(d)(11)

Drawings and specifications for all frame scaffolds over 125 feet in height above the base plates shall be designed by a registered professional engineer and copies made available to the employer and for inspection purposes.

1910.28(d)(12)

All tubular welded frame scaffolds shall be erected by competent and experienced personnel.

1910.28(d)(13)

Frames and accessories for scaffolds shall be maintained in good repair and every defect, unsafe condition, or noncompliance with this section shall be immediately corrected before further use of the scaffold. Any broken, bent, excessively rusted, altered, or otherwise structurally damaged frames or accessories shall not be used.

1910.28(d)(14)

Periodic inspections shall be made of all welded frames and accessories, and any maintenance, including painting, or minor corrections authorized by the manufacturer, shall be made before further use.

There are more specific rules but this will give you a place to start. These rules are what IOSH will be using to determine if a violation has occurred and if so how it can be corrected. The GC needs to be applying these same rules.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Why are construction workers killed from falls when fall protection gear is so readily available?

Steve Lombardi — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:11:19 GMT

Another death resulted in a fall from a swinging scaffold hear Thompson, Iowa. A Minnesota man was working on a construction site building a feed mill at Christensen Farms, when apparently he slipped and fell 150 feet to his death. The man was an employee of the general contractor, Todd and Sargent Inc., which is headquartered in Ames. According to news reports IOSH is investigating the incident.

Probably what they will find is no fall protection was used by this worker, a situation that the GC can prevent by providing it, supervising the employees and enforcing legitimate rules required by OSHA. Fall protection regulations are covered under 29 CFR 1926, subpart M Safety and Health Regulations for Construction, Fall Protection.

“On November 25, 1986, OSHA proposed to revise the fall protection standard. The rulemaking record, developed over a nine-year period, resulted in a more performance-oriented rule, issued on August 9, 1994 (published in volume 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1926, subpart M, and in volume 59 of the Federal Register, beginning on page 40,672). You can view the rule on OSHA's Internet site at www.osha.gov. In general, the rule requires that an employee exposed to a fall hazard of six feet or more must be protected by equipment that prevents or arrests the fall.”

Here is what OSHA’s pamphlet on fall arrest states:

“Personal Fall Arrest Systems - 1926.502(d)

These consist of an anchorage, connectors, and a body belt or body harness and may include a deceleration device, lifeline, or suitable combinations. If a personal fall arrest system is used for fall protection, it must do the following:

• Limit maximum arresting force on an employee to 900 pounds (4 kiloNewtons) when used with a body belt;

• Limit maximum arresting force on an employee to 1,800 pounds (8 kiloNewtons) when used with a body harness;

• Be rigged so that an employee can neither free fall more than 6 feet (1.8 meters) nor contact any lower level;

• Bring an employee to a complete stop and limit maximum deceleration distance an employee travels to 3.5 feet (1.07 meters); and

• Have sufficient strength to withstand twice the potential impact energy of an employee free falling a distance of 6 feet (1.8 meters) or the free fall distance permitted by the system, whichever is less.

The use of body belts for fall arrest is currently allowed, but effective January 1, 1998, the use of a body belt for fall arrest will be prohibited; however, the use of a body belt in a positioning device system is acceptable.

Personal fall arrest systems must be inspected prior to each use for wear damage, and other deterioration. Defective components must be removed from service. Dee-rings and snaphooks must have a minimum tensile strength of 5,000 pounds (22.2 kiloNewtons). Dee-rings and snaphooks shall be proof-tested to a minimum tensile load of 3,600 pounds (16 kiloNewtons) without cracking, breaking, or suffering permanent deformation.

Snaphooks shall be sized to be compatible with the member to which they will be connected, or shall be of a locking configuration.”

Scaffolds are covered as well an in particular when they are not stable.

“In addition to meeting the requirements of 1926.502(d), personal fall-arrest systems used on scaffolds are to be attached by lanyard to a vertical lifeline, horizontal lifeline, or scaffold structural member. [1926.451(g)(3)]”

The bottom line is that this death was probably preventable if OSHA rules had been followed. If and who weren’t following them is not known. Only a good investigation can determine those answers.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi