Inside this issue:
Why do knowledgeable people choose not to use cave-in protection? Lately the answer from employers is that cave-in protection would have been "inconvenient" to use.
While some of you know that is not what you want to tell an OSHA Compliance Officer, one employer actually said: "If the box (trench box) would have fit--we would have used it".
We are finding more and more trenching contractors not in compliance with the trenching standards. In fact, lack of cave-in protection was the #2 cited violation this past year.
A protective system must be used if an excavation is 5 feet or greater in depth. The three most commonly used types of protective systems are: shoring, shielding, and sloping.
Each of these protective systems are acceptable to OSHA: it is up to the competent person to determine which method will be most effective for the job. (See for more on protective systems.)
If it not acceptable (or legal) to not use cave in protection because of convenience.
Due to the serious hazards involved, and the fact that most contractors we inspect are not in compliance, most of this newsletter will be devoted to trenching hazards and corrective methods.
A partnership to reduce injuries, illnesses and deaths in the hazardous residential construction industry was signed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the On-Site Safety and Health Consultation Program of Illinois (DCCA), the Residential Construction Employers Council (RCEC) and the Northeast Illinois District Council of Carpenters Apprenticeship and Training Program.
The partnership will provide members with information and guidance that will help enhance employee safety programs, including ways to minimize hazards from falls. Members will work together to develop training on safety and health issues specifically aimed at residential construction.
Members of the RCEC will be encourages to participate in programs such as Consultation's Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program (SHARP) and the Voluntary Protection Program (VPP).
A team of representatives from the agencies will meet regularly to set goals and objectives and track progress.
The technical rescue teams of Aurora, North Aurora and Batavia Fire Departments came together this October in front of the Home Depot on Orchard Road for what appeared to be a construction accident. Fortunately, it was a preplanned trench rescue drill to test the skills and abilities of the three fire departments technical rescue teams.
According to Lt. Mark Lockwood, coordinator of Aurora's rescue team, the three departments' train together on a quarterly basis on different technical rescue disciplines. "The joint training allows us to be well prepared in the event of an actual incident," Lockwood says.
Crews simulated that a construction crew was digging a hole when part of the earth wall collapsed on a victim. The technical rescue teams used specialized equipment that was placed in the hole to prevent more dirt from falling on the victim. Rescue workers then entered the protected area, treated the victim, and removed the victim using rope rescue equipment. "Sixty-fire percent of all would be rescuers become victims because proper safety procedures are not followed" Lockwood says. "It seems like it takes a long time, but we must follow the safety procedures to protect the rescuers and the victim from further injury."
The team practiced several different scenarios from 8 a.m. to noon. The Home Depot site was chosen because of their extensive help in developing a disaster and recovery plan with the technical rescue team.
The joint rescue team was established 2 years ago to address the needs of special rescues in the area. According to Assistant Chief Mark Bozik, the combined team is capable of handling such incidents as trench rescues, building collapses, confined space rescues, elevated or rope rescues, and mass casualty incidents.
The combined team is 1 of only 14 teams that is recognized by the state for technical rescue" Bozik says. "The team could be called anywhere in the State in the event of a major incident. Residents should be proud that this highly trained team is in their community."
Despite being covered since 1971 under the original steel erection standard, America's 56,000 steel erectors continued to suffer 35 fatal accidents per year, a rate of one death per 1,600 workers. OSHA estimates that 30 of those deaths, as well as nearly 1,150 annual lost-workday injuries, will be eliminated by compliance with provisions of the new standard, developed with industry and labor through negotiated rulemaking. This eTool has been created to educate employers and workers about the revised standard.
U.S. v Walter Marble
Federal District Court issued its sentencing order in this criminal prosecution of the owner of a construction company who made false statements to OSHA inspectors and furnished false documents to cover up the fact that he in fact employed a worker who was killed at a jobsite. Following a plea agreement entered last August, the court sentenced Walter Marble to five months confinement with the Bureau of Prisons to be followed by five months home confinement and two years of supervised release. Marble was also fined $3,000 and assessed costs of $100. Mr. Marble plead guilty to one count of corruptly obstructing the due administration of the law in an OSHA investigation by causing a false contract, a false invoice, and a letter containing false statements to be submitted to OSHA for the purpose of corruptly influencing OSHA's determination of whether an individual killed in a trench collapse on November 4, 1999 was working as an independent contractor or was an employee.
L.E. Meyers Co. Indicted in Deaths of Two Workers
This December an electrical contracting firm and its parent company were indicted in connection with the deaths of two employees working on high-voltage lines three years ago. The misdemeanor charges allege the L.E. Meyers Co. and its parent, MYR Group Inc., both based in Rolling Meadows, willfully failed to properly train and supervise the workers, who were killed in separate incidents in urban Chicago.
The companies were charged with two counts each - one for each death - of allegedly violating Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations. If convicted, the two companies face fines of up to $2 million and a maximum of 5 years of probation.
The following is a synopsis of some of the accidents we investigated during the past few months:
The "top ten" cited violations for construction are listed for the state of Illinois during this past fiscal year (October 2001 - September 2002).
Lack of cave-in protection landed at number 2 on the list, with over $350,000 in penalties issued. This was, by far, the most penalized standard last year. 16% of the violations were cited as "Repeat". This means that the company inspected had been cited for that exact same violation (or hazard) during the past three years.
Another area consistently cited was fall protection - whether from scaffolds, roofing or residential construction sites.
We will continue our emphasis in these areas next year.
|1||1926.451(g)(1)||Lack of fall protection on scaffold - over 10'|
|2||1926.652(a)(1)||Trenches - lack of cave-in protection|
|3||1926.20(b)(1)||Accident prevention programs|
|4||1926.501(b)(1)||Lack of fall protection - working over 6'|
|5||1926.100(a)||Hard hats not provided and/or worn|
|6||1926.21(b)(2)||The employer shall instruct each employee in the recognition and avoidance of unsafe conditions and the regulations applicable to his work environment.|
|7||1926.451(e)(1)||Access to scaffolds|
|8||Section 5(a)(1)||General Duty Clause|
|9||1926.451(b)(1)||Scaffolds - not fully planked|
|10||1926.501(b)(10)||Roofing work on low-slope roofs - no fall protection when over 6 feet|
After a citation is issued, employers frequently have an informal conference with the area director to discuss violations. Some of the "reasons" for noncompliance are quite interesting - and sad. Listed here are the "top ten" reasons for noncompliance.
The job was only going to take a minute.
Guardrails were order and on the way to the job site - we just decided to start work without them.
We have guardrails on the other site.
We have been doing this work for 20 years and would not expose ourselves to hazards. (the employee was in a 10-foot deep trench without cave-in protection).
The soil was good.
(The employer is responsible for frequently and regular inspections of the job site. Any recognized hazards must be taken care of.)
We never used that equipment (photos show employees using the equipment during the inspection).
I left my personal protective equipment in the other truck.
Our foreman has a lot of experience and is an OSHA competent person (then why did he tell us that it was OK to work on a 15-foot high scaffold without guardrails).
That wasn't our employee.
And the number 1 reason:
OSHA made us nervous.
Soil is heavy. A cubic foot can weigh as much as 114 pounds, and a cubic yard can weigh over 3,000 lbs. - a little more than a Volkswagen Beetle. Most workers don't realize the force that will hit them when a cave-in occurs. A person buried under only a few feet of soil can experience enough pressure in the chest area to prevent the lungs from expanding. Suffocation can take place in as little as three minutes. Heavier soils can crush the body in a matter of seconds.
Protective systems are methods of protective workers from cave-ins of material that can fall or roll into an excavation, or from the collapse of nearby structures. If an excavation is less than 5 feet deep, OSHA does not require a protective systems unless the competent person sees signs of a potential cave-in. (It is important to remember that a wall collapse in a trench four and 1/2 fee deep can still have serious results!)
For trenches between 5 feet and 20 feet deep, shoring and sheeting, shielding, sloping and benching are all acceptable protective measures. It is up to the planners of the construction project and the competent person on site to determine which systems will will work best. If an excavation is greater than 20 feet deep, a registered professional engineer must design the protective system.
Shoring systems are structures of timber, mechanical, or hydraulic systems that support the sides of an excavation which are designed to prevent cave-ins. Sheeting is a type of shoring that keeps the earth in position. It can be driven into the ground or work in conjunction with a shoring system. Driving sheeting is most frequently used for excavations open for long periods of time. Another type of sheeting, in which plates or shoring grad plywood (sometimes called Finland form) is used in conjunction with strutted systems such as hydraulic or timber shoring. These strutted systems are also referred to as active systems. The most frequently used strutted system involves aluminum hydraulic shores which are light-weight, re-usable and installed and removed completely from above ground.
A shield, also known as a trench box, is another common protective system used by contractors. Trench boxes are not designed to prevent cave-ins, but rather serve to "shield" workers within the structure should a cave-in occur. This is an excellent choice when placing continuous installations, as in pipe laying. The box is placed in the trench and dragged along with the progress of the work. A few important points about shields:
With both shoring and shielding, workers are only protected as long as they stay within the confines of the system.
Sloping and benching are another means of protecting workers from cave-in hazards. Sloping is a method of cutting back the trench walls at such an angle that there is little chance of collapse. This is referred to an an "angle of repose", and must be suitable to the type of soil.
There are very few applications where sloping and/or benching can be used. Why? The lack of available space. Many excavations are dug in right-of-ways where the presence of other utilities and traffic become major considerations. If the location to be excavated has been previously disturbed, as it frequently is along a right-of-way, the soil type swill very likely be classified as "C". with Type C soil, the excavation walls must be sloped back on each side of the excavation one and one-half feet for every foot of depth.
Pre-job planning is vital to accident-free trenching. Safety cannot be improvised as work progresses.
Regardless of the depth of the excavation, OSHA requires a competent person to inspect conditions at the site on a daily basis. Inspections must be made as frequently as necessary during the progress of the work, to assure that the hazards associated with excavations are eliminated, before workers are allowed to enter the trench.
The following concerns must be addressed by a competent person:
Should a third-party be required to stop work, or the designated competent person does not halt unsafe acts and conditions, this individual is not acting "competently" within the meaning of the standard.
The North Aurora Illinois Area Office publishes the AURORA OSHA CONSTRUCTION NEWS. Readers are encouraged to submit suggestions or questions to:
Nancy M. Quick, CSP, CIH
This newsletter provides a generic, non-exhaustive overview of OSHA standards-related topics. This newsletter does not itself alter or determine compliance responsibilities, which are set forth in OSHA standards themselves and the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.
Additional safety measures may be required by your facility under certain conditions or circumstances. Professional advice should be sought for specific situations.
The North Aurora Area Office
The Department of Labor does not endorse, takes no responsibility for, and exercises no control over the linked organization or its views, or contents, nor does it vouch for the accuracy or accessibility of the information contained on the destination server. The Department of Labor also cannot authorize the use of copyrighted materials contained in linked Web sites. Users must request such authorization from the sponsor of the linked Web site. Thank you for visiting our site. Please click the button below to continue.