kramer 2010 03 fp update 2010 02 25 for attendees

ENHANCING SAFETY AND REDUCING RISK: ENHANCING SAFETY AND REDUCING RISK: FALL PROTECTION ON CONSTRUCTION SITES

ASSE Virtual SymposiumMarch 16, 2010

Thomas E. Kramer, P.E., C.S.P. PrincipalTKramer@LJBinc.com and (937) 259-5120

Michael A. Shell, P.E., Qualified PersonMShell@LJBInc.com and (937) 259-5179

POLLINGPOLLING

What industry do you work?Commercial– Commercial

– Government

– Heavy civily

– Institutional

– Manufacturing

– Petrochemical

– Power generation

– Other– Other

TOTAL FALL FATALITIESTOTAL FALL FATALITIES

607 652623 634 659

698

638604

738664

738 733680

600700800

400500600

Fatalities

100200300

0100

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008Year

Source: BLS Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries

TOTAL FALL FATALITIESTOTAL FALL FATALITIES

+28%+28%607 652

623 634 659698

638604

738664

738 733680

600700800

400500600

Fatalities

100200300

0100

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Source: BLS Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries

Year

FATALITIES OCCURING IN CONSTRUCTIONFATALITIES OCCURING IN CONSTRUCTION

Falls36.4%

429

749

Other

Of the 1,178 occupational fatalities in the construction

63.6%

O t e , 8 occupat o a ata t es t e co st uct oindustry, 36% resulted from falls.

Source: BLS Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries

FALL FATALITIES BY WORK ACTIVITYFALL FATALITIES BY WORK ACTIVITY

200

160

180

200

100

120

140 Roofs

Ladders

Scaffolds

60

80

100 Scaffolds

Non-movingvehiclesStrucSteel

0

20

40StrucSteel

01998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Source: BLS Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries

2009 OSHA STATISTICS2009 OSHA STATISTICS

1. Scaffolding -- 9,093 violations.

2. Fall protection -- 6,771 violations.

3. Hazard communication -- 6,378 violations. ,

4. Respiratory protection -- 3,803 violations.

5. Lockout/tagout -- 3,321 violations.

AGENDAAGENDA

Background

Relevant issues

Closingg

LEARNING OBJECTIVESLEARNING OBJECTIVES

Explain why specific standards and regulations are relevant to the construction industryy

Identify specific areas where you can evaluate and improve your fall protection programy p p g

POLLINGPOLLING

Which of the following standards or regulations are f ili ( h ll th t l )?you familiar (choose all that apply)?

– OSHA 1910 (or state version)

OSHA 1926 (or state version)– OSHA 1926 (or state version)

– ANSI Z359

– ANSI A10.32

POLLINGPOLLING

Which standard or regulation do you most often f h d l ith f ll t ti ?reference when you deal with fall protection?

– OSHA 1910 (or state version)

OSHA 1926 (or state version)– OSHA 1926 (or state version)

– ANSI Z359

– ANSI A10.32

AGENDAAGENDA

BackgroundOSHA 1926– OSHA 1926

– ANSI

• ANSI/ASSE A10.32

• ANSI/ASSE Z359

Relevant issues

Closing

HISTORYHISTORY

Construction (1926)S bpart M “Fall Protection”– Subpart M – “Fall Protection”

– Others

• Subpart L – “Scaffolds ”p

• Subpart R – “Steel Erection”

• Subpart X – “Ladders”

– …and others

LIMITATIONS OF OSHALIMITATIONS OF OSHA

Which do I use? Construction v. General IndustryUse of S bpart M– Use of Subpart M

– Inspection exception

LIMITATIONSLIMITATIONS

Warning lines 6 feet– 6 feet

– 10 feet

– 15 feet

– Designated areas

Fall protection planp p

Monitor system

ANSI A10 32 SCOPEANSI A10.32 SCOPE

Part of ANSI A10 series

Personal protective systems for:– Equipment requirements

– Horizontal lifelines

– Climbing

– Travel restriction (restraint)Travel restriction (restraint)

– Work positioning

– Rescue and evacuation

ANSI Z359 2007 FAMILY OF STANDARDSANSI Z359-2007 FAMILY OF STANDARDS

Z359.1: Safety requirements for personal fall arrest systems…

Z359.3: Safety requirements for positioning and travel restraint Z359.3: Safety requirements for positioning and travel restraint systems

Z359 4: Safety requirements for assisted rescue and selfZ359.4: Safety requirements for assisted-rescue and self-rescue systems…

Z359.2: Minimum requirements for a comprehensive managed fall protection program

Z359.0: Definitions and nomenclature

ANSI Z359 2009 FAMILY OF STANDARDSANSI Z359-2009 FAMILY OF STANDARDS

Z359.6: Specifications and design requirements for active fall-protection systems

Z359.12: Connecting Components for Personal Fall Arrest Systems

Z359.13: Personal Energy Absorbers and Energy Absorbing LanyardsLanyards

Z359.0: Definitions and nomenclature (UPDATED)

Effective on 16 Nov 2009

POLLINGPOLLING

Which is your biggest challenge when it comes to fall t ti ?protection?

– Identifying hazards

Developing abatement options– Developing abatement options

– Using equipment correctly

– Training workers

AGENDAAGENDA

Background

Relevant issues– Anchorages

– Equipment use

– Equipment inspection

– RescueRescue

Closing

ANCHORAGE LOADSANCHORAGE LOADS

1. Fall arrest

2. Work positioning

3. Fall restraint

4 Horizontal lifeline 4. Horizontal lifeline

5. Rescue

PFAS COMPATIBILITYPFAS COMPATIBILITY

D i d t t d d li d l t tDesigned, tested and supplied as a complete system29 CFR 1926.502 Appx C

SNAPHOOKSSNAPHOOKS

Do not engage to (unless of a locking Do not engage to (unless of a locking type) and designed for the following connections:Webbing, rope or wire ropeEach otherD-ring to which another snaphook or connector is attachedHorizontal lifelinesAny object incompatibly shaped or dimensioneddimensioned

29 CFR 1926.502(d)(6)

GATE STRENGTH HISTORY NON LOCKINGGATE STRENGTH HISTORY – NON-LOCKING

GATE STRENGTH HISTORY LOCKINGGATE STRENGTH HISTORY - LOCKING

GATE STRENGTHGATE STRENGTH

Z359.1 – 1992– 220 lbs. front load

– 350 lbs. side load350 lbs. side load

Z359.1 – 2007– 3,600 lbs. side load

3 600 lb f t l d– 3,600 lbs. front load

REDUCTION IN STRENGTHREDUCTION IN STRENGTH

Knots in rope lanyards or lifelines can reduce their strength by 50% or moreg y

Strength of an eye-bolt is rated along th ithe axis

Strength is greatly reduced if the force is applied at an angle to this axis (in the direction of the shear))

29 CFR 1926.502 Appx C & proposed 29 CFR 1910.129 Appx.

REDUCTION IN STRENGTHREDUCTION IN STRENGTH

Tie-off of a lanyard or lifeline d “H” d “I” b around an “H” and “I” beam or

similar support reduces its strength as much as 75% due to the cutting action of the beam edges

29 CFR 1926.502 Appx C & proposed 29 CFR 1910.129 Appx. A

EQUIPMENT MISUSEEQUIPMENT MISUSE

Consequences of the Use of Personal Fall P t ti E i t i P tiProtection Equipment in Practice

– by Wolfgang Schaeper

EQUIPMENT MISUSEEQUIPMENT MISUSE

FIXED LADDERSFIXED LADDERS

Fall-Arresting Effectiveness of Cages/Hoops d F ll A t S t Fi d L ddand Fall-Arrest Systems on Fixed Ladders

– by David Riches

– HSE research report 258

– http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr258.pdf

FIXED LADDERS – FINDINGSFIXED LADDERS – FINDINGS

FIXED LADDERS – FINDINGSFIXED LADDERS – FINDINGS

FIXED LADDERS – FINDINGSFIXED LADDERS – FINDINGS

ANSI Z359 13 2009ANSI Z359.13-2009

Key Topics

Test weight = 282 lbs. (previously 220 lbs.)

Fall factor 2 (i.e., 12 foot free fall)( , )

ANSI Z359 13 2009ANSI Z359.13-2009

INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS

OSHA 1926 Subpart M– Before using personal fall protection systems, and after any e o e us g pe so a a p o ec o sys e s, a d a e a y

component or system is changed, employees shall be trained in the … proper methods of equipment inspection

d tand storage.

"Inspections " Personal fall arrest systems shall be– Inspections. Personal fall arrest systems shall be inspected prior to each use for mildew, wear, damage and other deterioration, and defective components shall be removed from service if their strength or function may be adversely affected.

STANDARDS STANDARDS

ANSI Standards– ANSI Z359 1-2007– ANSI Z359.1-2007

• Section 6.1.1. “Equipment shall be inspected by the user before each use and, additionally, by a competent person , y, y p pother than the user at intervals of no more than one year.”

– ANSI A10.32-2004• Section 6.3.2. “Formal inspections shall be made by either

a Competent or Qualified Person on at least a semi-annual basis.”

BACKGROUNDBACKGROUND

Miller study – May 1, 2006– Is Your Fall Protection Equipment a Silent Hazard?q p

• “All fall protection equipment deteriorates with use and exposure over time, regardless of brand and/or manufacturer.

• Equipment is not inspected often enough for wear and damage.

• Proper training is not provided--often, the wrong equipment is selected for a particular situation, and equipment is not worn p q pproperly.”

BACKGROUNDBACKGROUND

Miller study – May 1, 2006– Over several months shock-absorbing lanyards have beenOver…several months, shock absorbing lanyards … have been

voluntarily removed from job sites for safety qualification

BACKGROUNDBACKGROUND

Miller study – May 1, 2006– 100 % did not pass visual inspection criteria

BACKGROUNDBACKGROUND

Miller study – May 1, 2006– 100% did not pass visual inspection criteria– 6% were previously deployed but still in active service– 9% had webbing that was knotted– 42% had hardware with visible defects

BACKGROUNDBACKGROUND

Miller study – May 1, 2006– 100% did not pass visual inspection criteria– 6% were previously deployed but still in active service% p y p y– 9% had webbing that was knotted.– 42% had hardware with visible defects– 6% the webbing actually brokeg y– 9% over 1,800 pounds– 9% had snap hooks that opened during testing– 24% elongated over the 42-inch standard

BACKGROUNDBACKGROUND

Miller study – May 1, 2006– 100% did not pass visual inspection criteria

6% were previously deployed but still in active service– 6% were previously deployed but still in active service– 9% had webbing that was knotted.– 42% had hardware with visible defects– 6% the webbing actually broke6% the webbing actually broke– 9% over 1,800 pounds– 9% had snap hooks that opened during testing– 24% elongated over the 42-inch standard24% elongated over the 42 inch standard– 85% of the product samples FAILED standard safety tests (in

accordance with ANSI standards)

POLLINGPOLLING

How long do you think someone can safely suspend i f ll b d h ?in a full body harness?– 15 minutes or less

20 minutes– 20 minutes

– 30 minutes

– 45 minutes or more

RESCUE OSHA REQUIREMENTS RESCUE – OSHA REQUIREMENTS

“The employer shall provide for prompt rescue of employees in the event of a fall or shall assure that employees in the event of a fall or shall assure that employees are able to rescue themselves.”

Letters of Interpretations– “While an employee may be safely suspended in a body harness for a p y y y p y

longer period than from a body belt, the word “prompt” requires that rescue be performed quickly -- in time to prevent serious injury to the worker ” August 14 2000worker. August 14, 2000

Safety and Health Information Bulletin

AGENDAAGENDA

Background

Relevant issues

Closingg– International Fall Protection Symposium – Baltimore MD

• June 16 & 17, 2010

• Held in conjunction with Safety 2010

– http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk7F8UJxnLU

ENHANCING SAFETY AND REDUCING RISK: ENHANCING SAFETY AND REDUCING RISK: FALL PROTECTION ON CONSTRUCTION SITES

ASSE Virtual SymposiumMarch 16, 2010

Thomas E. Kramer, P.E., C.S.P. PrincipalTKramer@LJBinc.com and (937) 259-5120

Michael A. Shell, P.E., Qualified PersonMShell@LJBInc.com and (937) 259-5179