mfip pimac
TRANSCRIPT
The Most Common Forklift Accident
Forklift Drive Off’s
Why Port Safety?
Mr. Juval Aviv ¡ M.A. in Business, Tel Aviv University
¡ President and CEO of Interfor, Inc., International corporate intelligence and investigations firm
Mr. Aviv recently created/executed a security test for our Congress, Aviv believes our “port security is a joke.”
OSHA Federal Rules OSHA Federal Rules 1926.28(a) The employer is responsible for requiring the wearing of
appropriate personal protective equipment in all operations where there is an exposure to hazardous conditions or where this part indicates the need for using such equipment to reduce the hazards to the employees.
1926.602(a)(3)(ii) Every emergency access ramp and berm used by an employer shall be constructed to restrain and control runaway vehicles.
1910.30(b)(2) Aisles shall be provided of sufficient width to permit the free movement of employees bringing and removing material. This aisle
space is to be independent of working and storage space.
Safety & Security Homeland Security Targets
Chemical Plants: Produce companies & Vineyards
Ports of Entry and Foreign Trade Zones FDA & the Dept of Agriculture Targets
Distribution and storage facilities of consumable goods
Ports of Entry Department of Corrections
Inmate security and tracking Hundreds of millions of dollars in damages Loss of Human life
SECURING AN AREASECURING AN AREA
Securing egress is the best, most affordable way to
manage threats of terrorism, food contamination & work
related injuries.
Technological Answers Technological Answers for Safety Concernsfor Safety Concerns
GPS: Current GPS Technology is not considered real-time and is limited in its ability to properly record exact location.
Infra-Red: Basic technology that can not take into account location. Only monitors visual space between reading beams.
RFID: RFID can track anything that is properly tagged in a defined area and uses real-time communication to monitor proximity as well as movement every 3 to 15 seconds.
Radio Frequency IdentificationRadio Frequency Identification
Works with both active and passive tags to monitor locations 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
Easily access and sort database of location readings for internal and external audits.
Easy installation and minimal training required.
Monitoring of movement is done from centrally located computer screen and can also be done remotely.
SafetyTracker System™
TRACKS MOVEMENT IN SPECIFIED AREAS
These areas could be: high traffic areas; fork lift operational zones; loading / unloading areas; Warehouses; Correctional facilities, or any area designated by management.
SafetyTracker System™
20+ years of R & D, culminated with a patent and the SafetyTracker System ™ production in 2008
Utilizing the RFID technology, any person, product or assets entering a designated area can be tracked
The SafetyTracker System™ is designed to protect people & assets on loading docks, inside warehouses, correctional facilities and various work places.
Sample LayoutSample Layout
SafetyTracker System™
Instantaneous tracking through continual transmission…….ACTIVE TECHNOLOGY
Operations alerted of impending dangerAutomatic forklift shutdown option
Data & Visual recordings produced on request Archive records for as long as you want
View a sample report
According to the analysis, 30% of maritime accidents that occurred during the research period were on the dock or in the warehouse/terminal. Cargo was involved in 30% of the accidents, 64% of which involved sacks/bags, and 12% steel/pipe. Two hundred and forty of the incidents (20%) involved the individual being struck by a moving object; 221 (19%) resulted from lifting, pushing, pulling or bodily reaction; 208 (17%) from falls from the same level-slip or trip; 142 (12%) from striking against, or stepping/jumping on an object; 130 (11%) from being struck by a falling object; and 109 (9%) from being caught in, under, or between objects. Thirteen percent of all accidents involved stevedore gear/equipment.
Another way the Agency attempted to identify the major sources of longshoring accidents for rulemaking purposes was to examine a number of fatal or near fatal accidents reported to OSHA from this industry sector. In conducting this analysis, OSHA examined these case files to determine the precise cause of the accident. A brief summary of a few of the more than 250 such accidents reviewed is provided below.
Accident Research
Industry specific accidents Port Elizabeth, New Jersey - June 1978. One employee was killed and one
seriously injured when an intermodal container lifting beam, being lowered to hoist the container both men were standing on, suddenly fell. The device, weighing in excess of 4 tons, crushed both employees. Compliance with proposed 1918.81(k) would have prevented this accident (Ex. 1-87).
Port Newark, New Jersey - August 1976. An employee aboard an elevator Ro-Ro ship, while in the process of discharging automobiles, drove into what was thought to be an available elevator to gain access to the ramp or discharge deck. The elevator was actually at a higher deck. The employee and vehicle fell into the shaft and down three decks. Barricading of the open deck spaces could have prevented this accident (Ex. 1-88).
San Juan, Puerto Rico - August 1978. An employee aboard a seagoing, multi-deck Ro-Ro barge was run over and killed by a tractor trailer while the trailer was being maneuvered into its stowage position. No signalman was provided to protect employees from the hazard that ultimately killed this lasher (an employee engaged in securing cargo). Additionally, illumination was severely lacking within the confines of the vessel's below deck cargo spaces. The use of proper illumination and a signaller for this operation could have prevented the fatality (Ex. 1-89).
Port Elizabeth, New Jersey - August 1984. Two workers, while driving in a vehicle within a large Ro-Ro vessel, fell from the end of an elevated internal ramp back down to deck level. These employees thought the ramp could take them to the next higher deck, however, the ramp was not so positioned. The car they were operating landed on its roof. One employee was killed, the other was injured. Barricading of the ramp could have prevented this accident (Ex. 1-86).
