SAFETY TRAINING

OSHA Stressing Demolition Safety in Wake of Recent FatalitiesR ecent fatalities involving building demolition

activities have prompted OSHA to caution employers to ensure workers are being properly trained and protected on US worksites.

On June 20, 2014, a construction worker taking down an old Blockbuster Video building in New Jersey was trapped and killed when the last standing wall under demolition collapsed on top of him. Six months earlier, a 25-year-old construction worker in Chicago was struck and killed by pieces of falling concrete while conducting renovations on a shopping mill.

And in June 2013, the collapse of a four-story building undergoing demolition in Philadelphia killed six people and injured 14 others.

OSHA says all of these deaths were preventable. To help prevent such tragedies and save lives, OSHA has developed new educational resources and training for the construction demolition industry.

“Demolition workers face many hazards and their lives should not be sacrificed because of deliberate neglect of demolition fundamentals,” says OSHA Administrator Dr. David Michaels. “Employers must ensure that all workers involved in a demolition project are fully aware of hazards and safety precautions before work begins and as it progresses.”

OSHA recently launched an updated demolition website (https://www.osha.gov/doc/topics/demolition/index.html) to address the hazards common in demolition operations and the safety measures that can be taken to prevent them. This safety resource provides information on applicable OSHA standards, hazard assessments, measures that can be taken to prevent injuries and illnesses before site work begins, and a link for others to share stories about demolition safety.

Read More on Page 2

BY ThE NumBERS: Carbon monoxide Poisoning Risks 3

SEvEN STATISTICS: highway Work Zones 4

OShA WATCh: OShA Related News 5

RISkY BuSINESS: Communication Towers Among Riskier Workplaces 7

SlIPS, TRIPS ANd FAllS: Seven Statistics on Slipping hazards 8

IN THIS ISSUE

www.SafetySmartCompliance.com

FeAtuRe: OShA Stressing demolition Safety in Wake of Recent Fatalities

The Safety Manager’s Plain-English Guide to Better OSHA Compliance

SEPTEMBER 2014VOL 3 | ISSUE 9

2

Se

pte

mb

er

20

14 | S

afe

tyS

ma

rtC

om

pli

an

ce

.co

m

HOW TO USE QUICK CODESABOUT US

Quick Codes make it easy to access all the content in this issue online!How do you use them? It’s easy, just follow these 3 steps.

1. Go to SafetySmartCompliance.com and look for the Quick Code box

2. Type in the Quick Code (example: 1001)

3. Press the “Go” button

Instantly you will be taken to the article, tool, or analysis. On the webpage you’ll also find related articles, helpful tools, and/or additional resources that have been expertly chosen by our editor to help simplify your job of building a compliant safety culture.

SafetySmart Compliance is published by Bongarde Holdings Inc. and is intended for in-house use only. Commercial reproduction is a violation of our copyright agreement. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information on the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional services. If legal or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

To order a subscription to SafetySmart Compliance for $397/12 months, please call our customer service center at 1-800-667-9300, fax us at 1-250-493-1970 or visit our website at www.SafetySmartCompliance.com. Publications Mail #40065442. Printed in Canada. N

EWSL

ETTE

R & ELECTRONIC PUBLISHERS FO

UN

DATION

EDITORIALEXCELLENCEAWARDWINNER

Between 2009 and 2013, OSHA issued nearly 1,000 citations for violations of OSHA’s construction demolition standards. The most common violation cited was for failure to conduct an engineering survey to determine the condition of a structure prior to demolition. This process includes determining whether an unplanned collapse of the building or any adjacent structure would injure those working in the vicinity.

To ramp up efforts to protect demolition workers, OSHA recently provided demolition training courses on construction safety to federal, state and local government personnel with construction safety responsibilities.

Do you know how much work is required to demolish a brick wall? Home renovation TV shows make demolition work seem easy, requiring no more than a sledge hammer and strong arms to swing it. But in reality, demolition is an exacting process, which, if done wrong, can have deadly consequences for workers and anyone else who happens to be in the path of a collapsing structure.

A horrifying example occurred on June 5, 2013 in Philadelphia, when a building under demolition collapsed onto a Salvation Army Thrift Store, killing six people and injuring 14 others. News reports stated that multiple complaints of shoddy demolition work at the site received up to three weeks before the collapse were not addressed by inspectors.

WorkSafe NB (New Brunswick) issued a hazard alert after a non-fatal injury occurred to one of two workers who had been demolishing an 11-foot (3.35-meter) high wall using hand tools.

The cracked brick wall needed to be removed because it was separating from a building. Workers pried the lower sections of the wall away from the building, allowing them to lean the sections into the building before cleaning up debris on the ground.

As the workers cleaned, a wall section fell on one of the workers and knocked him to the ground. He suffered two broken vertebrae and chipped a bone in his knee.

“When using hand tools such as jackhammers, sledge hammers and picks during demolition or salvaging operations, workers must use proper sequences that start from the top of the structure,” says WorkSafe NB. “Masonry and brickwork should be taken down in reasonably even courses and demolished in reverse order of construction.”

WorkSafe NB recommends the following preventive actions during manual demolition of walls:

�� Ensure workers are trained on safe demolition methods before starting.

�� Ensure that any asbestos-containing materials or other toxic, flammable or explosive materials are properly identified and dealt with before doing any work.

�� Ensure that the work is supervised by a competent person or persons.

�� Ensure that a written code of practice is prepared and is appropriate for the demolition method to be used.

�� Ensure that the procedure is sequential and specific for the site.

�� When removing entire wall sections using manual demolition methods that incorporate hand tools, such as jackhammers, sledge hammers and picks, avoid actions that could weaken the wall, such as taking down multiple rows of brick at once or starting at the bottom of the wall. The safe method involves removing the top course of bricks using a hammer and chisel and finishing an entire row before starting the next one.

�� When removing a portion of a wall where masonry will remain above the opening (to install a new window, for example), the upper area of masonry should be supported before demolition begins and should start at the top of the intended opening.

�� Establish exclusion zones to keep unauthorized people outside of potential collapse zones and areas affected by rebounding material.

�� Employers must provide and employees must wear personal protective equipment as required by workplace safety regulations.

�� Employees must not work from the top of a wall that is being demolished.

�� Do not allow a wall to stand unless it is effectively supported against collapse. This includes checking whether the wall to be demolished provides support for other walls.

Policies and Practices: How to Safely Demolish a Brick Wall

Enter Code at SafetySmartCompliance.com

QUICK CODE 1243

MAnAGinG eDitORGLENN S. DEMBY, ESQ.

Related ArticlesFalling Concrete Kills Demolition Worker in Minnesota A demolition worker is killed while helping take down a defunct Gillette manufacturing plant.

QuiCK CODe: 1244

engineer Charged in Ontario Mall Collapse Case An engineer is facing serious charges in connection with the partial collapse of a shopping mall, which killed two people.

QuiCK CODe: 1245

3

Safe

tyS

ma

rt C

om

pli

an

ce

September 2014 | SafetySmartCompliance.com

Enter Code at SafetySmartCompliance.com

QUICK CODE1246

BY ThE NumBERS

Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Risks

2,511Average number of

nonfatal CO poisoning in the month of January

(compared to 510 in June) 100%Percentage who reported that they were alerted by the CO detector

9.3%Percentage of patients that had a CO detector at home

480Number of persons

who die from non-fire-related CO poisoning each year on average

9%CO exposure

incidents associated with motor vehicles

69Average

number of CO poisoning

fatalities in January

(compared to 21 in June)

64%Percentage of nonfatal CO exposures that occur in the home

2.7%The average number of men that die of CO poisoning for each female CO fatality

18.5%CO exposure incidents associated with faulty furnaces

Source: The Journal of the American Medical Association

15,200Estimated annual

number of persons treated with confirmed

or possible non-fire-related CO exposure

4

Se

pte

mb

er

20

14 | S

afe

tyS

ma

rtC

om

pli

an

ce

.co

m

Enter Code at SafetySmartCompliance.com

QUICK CODE 1248

SEvEN STATISTICS

Highway Work ZonesA ll the signs are there, literally, in highway work zones—

signs telling drivers to slow down and be alert for workers and equipment and the “slow” and “stop” signs held by flaggers. Yet motorists, their passengers and road construction and maintenance workers continue to die or suffer injuries in these busy areas.

Here are seven statistics relating to highway work zone fatalities in the US and Canada:

1. The three states with the most vehicle crash fatalities in highway work zones are Texas, California and Florida. (Bureau of Labor Statistics)

2. Four things that can keep drivers, passengers and highway work zone workers safe are planning ahead and allowing extra time to reach your driving destination, staying alert in highway work zones, minimizing distractions and reducing your speed in accordance with signs in highway work zones. (American Automobile Association)

3. Eight percent of all US occupational construction deaths occurring between 2003 and 2007 involved road construction/maintenance workers. (BLS)

4. Backing dump trucks account for 60 percent of worker deaths associated with workers being struck by reversing equipment or vehicles. (BLS)

5. The majority (66 percent) of highway work zone crashes occurring in Canada over a five-year period happened in clear weather conditions, mostly during daylight hours. (Transport Canada)

6. Nearly 85 percent of the people killed in highway work zone crashes are motorists and their passengers. (National Motorists’ Association)

7. Most crashes in highway work zones do not result in fatalities. In 2010 across the US, 0.6 percent of highway work zone crashes were deadly, 30 percent caused injuries and 69 percent involved property damage only. (US Department of Transportation).

5

QUICK CODEEnter Code at SafetySmartCompliance.com

Safe

tyS

ma

rt C

om

pli

an

ce

September 2014 | SafetySmartCompliance.com 1249

OSHA WATCH

Asummer 2012 fire at a refinery in Richmond, CA, which sent thousands of San Francisco Bay Area residents to

hospital in respiratory distress has brought an agreement whereby Chevron Corporation will pay $2 million in fines and restitution.

The fire was caused by a corroded pipe that leaked flammable fluid used in the hydrocarbon refining process. The fluid vaporized and a vapor cloud ignited, spewing black smoke over residential areas. Nineteen workers engulfed by the vapor cloud before it exploded escaped serious injury.

Investigators determined that the pipe dated to the 1970s and was never replaced in spite of warnings from Chevron’s own inspectors. An investigation found that the pipe had been weakened by sulfur in crude oil being pumped through it.

Chevron pleaded no contest to six violations of the Labor Code and Health and Safety Code, including:

�� failure to correct deficiencies in equipment and continuing to use equipment which was outside acceptable limits;

�� failure to prevent non-emergency personnel from entering the emergency area;

�� failure to implement an effective injury and illness prevention program to protect employees from an imminent hazard;

�� failure to require the use of protective equipment to protect employees from exposure to potential harm.

�� two violations of the Health and Safety Code for the negligent emission of air contaminants.

Under the agreement reached with the California Attorney General’s Office and the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office, Chevron has agreed to inspect every piece of pipe identified as subject to sulfidation corrosion to ensure that every pipe is of sufficient thickness to operate safely. It will also make substantial changes to its business practices in order to protect the health and safety of its workers, emergency responders and local residents.

The agreement includes $1.28 million in fines, $575,000 reimbursement to the Division of Occupational Safety and Health, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the State Attorney General’s office and $145,000 toward a program that trains people for jobs in the renewable energy and construction fields.

The company told county health officials in January 2013 that it had paid $10 million in compensation for 24,000 residents, the hospitals that treated them after the fire, and local government agencies.

Chevron to Pay $2 Million in Fines and Restitution for Fire

6

Enter Code at SafetySmartCompliance.com

QUICK CODES

ep

tem

be

r 2

014

| S

afe

tyS

ma

rtC

om

pli

an

ce

.co

m

OSHA WATCH1250

O ne of, if not the scariest OSHA initiatives of recent years is the proposed reinterpretation of

the Occupational Noise Exposure standard (Section 1910.95) as requiring employers to implement more in the way of expensive engineering controls than in relatively inexpensive hearing protection.

OSHA quietly dropped the proposal in January 2011. But the results of a recent stakeholder meeting suggest that OSHA hasn’t completely abandoned the idea—at least in its heart of hearts. Among the items discussed at the Nov. 3, 2011 meeting is whether OSHA should place more emphasis on engineering controls and the return of investment on using such controls.

Engineering controls also figured prominently in discussion of the central item on the agenda: hearing conservation program best practices. Key items discussed:

�� Audiometric testing procedures and standards;

�� Hearing protector selection and use;

�� How to provide noise exposure training and education to workers;

�� Noise monitoring and exposure assessment methods;

�� Noise exposure threshold levels and whether to keep using the 85 dB exposure limit;

�� Best practices for noise control PPE, including fit testing and developments in hearing protector technology;

�� Noise exposure and control for particular industries or operations including construction, flight attendants and manufacturing; and

�� Actual hearing conservation program models and approaches like NASA’s Buy Quiet and Quiet by Design and other noise control programs that have worked well at different companies.

What’s Next for Noise Protection Engineering Controls?It appears that OSHA’s current leaders still believe that making employers implement expensive engineering solutions is the best way to protect workers from noise exposure, but the idea is simply not viable as a matter of politics.

January’s decision to pull back the proposal was a clear indication of the Obama Administration’s unwillingness to incur the business community’s wrath over this issue. Don’t look for this to change any time soon.

new Law update: What’s Going On With noise Protection Changes?

7

Safe

tyS

ma

rt C

om

pli

an

ce

September 2014 | SafetySmartCompliance.com

Enter Code at SafetySmartCompliance.com

QUICK CODE

RISkY BuSINESS

Communication towers Among Riskier Workplaces

1251

B eing involved in the construction or maintenance of telecommunications towers can be risky business—

although just how risky is open to debate.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) says estimates of risk for fatal injuries among telecommunications tower workers range from 49 per 100,000 employees to 468 per 100,000, compared to five deaths per 100,000 in US industry as a whole.

NIOSH says estimates vary because it is difficult to identify the numbers of workers involved.

“These workers are categorized in multiple industries and occupations among other workers who do other types of work,” according to NIOSH. “An estimated 95 workers died from falls and other injuries related to tower construction and maintenance from 1992 to 1997.”

Patrick Howey, administrator of the non-profit National Association of Tower Erectors, says most companies that build and maintain telecommunications towers are extremely safety conscious and follow US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines.

“There are hundreds of tower companies out there who are striving to do things right and do things safely,” says Howey.

However, companies that choose not to follow safety rules and cut corners may be able to underbid their safety-minded competitors, because they can operate more economically, he observes.

Safety issues that can arise during tower construction and maintenance include the following:

�� Unrealistic demands on how quickly jobs must be completed can have a direct impact on safety.

�� Failure to use proper equipment or the misuse of equipment can be fatal. Howey says numerous accidents in recent years were caused when the rules for safe personnel hoisting were ignored and foolish and dangerous practices were employed.

�� The elements can strongly affect tower safety. Ice and rain can make surfaces slippery and other environmental factors, such as strong winds, high heat and even wasps can cause problems.

�� Without proper training, problems can quickly develop. “All too often accidents happen to less-experienced climbers who were not given proper training before being sent up a tower,” says Howey.

�� Many towers are accessible only by helicopter. Construction and maintenance workers need to be trained in safe boarding and exiting of these aircraft. If workers must drive to remote tower sites on challenging roads, they should receive training on how to safely navigate them.

NIOSH offers the following advice for anyone who must climb towers on the job:

�� Your employer needs to comply with OSHA’s compliance directive 2-1.36. It describes safe practices in tower access and egress, the proper use of hoists and training of hoist operators, and the use of proper fall protection equipment. If you have not been trained in these areas, along with proper climbing techniques, or are not being issued proper PPE, talk to your supervisor.

�� One-hundred percent fall protection is required for employees working 25 feet or more above the ground or a working surface. Protection is required when ascending, descending, moving from point to point or performing any other work activities at heights.

�� Adequate work-positioning device systems need to be in place that allow workers to be supported on an elevated vertical surface while working with both hands free.

Related ArticleFall Protection OSHA Updates Tower Directive in Face of Fatalities.

QuiCK CODe: 1252

8

Se

pte

mb

er

20

14 | S

afe

tyS

ma

rtC

om

pli

an

ce

.co

m

SlIPS, TRIPS ANd FAllS

Seven Statistics on Slipping HazardsWhether moving too quickly on an icy walkway or

hurrying out of the shower across tile in your birthday suit to catch a ringing telephone, it’s surprising how quickly you can end up on the floor or ground with a throbbing head, or excruciating pain from an elbow or tailbone smacking the ground. Here are seven facts relating to slipping hazards and consequences:

1. Here are two things to know about footwear in the workplace: People working in predominantly wet conditions should wear footwear with a pattern that is deep enough to penetrate surface water and make direct contact with a floor. However, people working in predominantly dry conditions should use footwear having flat-bottom construction to ensure maximum contact area with the floor.

2. Ten common slipping hazards include spills of liquid or solid materials; wet cleaning methods; rain or snow inside doorways; changes in floor surfaces, such as joins between carpeting and wood flooring; a change from a wet to a dry surface; dusty or sandy surfaces;

the incline of a ramp; loose/bumpy flooring; low light; and unsuitable footwear.

3. Shoes with urethane or rubber soles have greater slip resistance than shoes with vinyl or leather soles.

4. Five housekeeping practices that can help reduce slipping hazards in the workplace include removal of debris, snow and ice; prompt cleanup of spills; regular cleaning of floors; providing mats in areas prone to getting wet—such as building entrances; and cleaning the casters on wheeled carts.

5. Slips and trips are the most common cause of major injuries at work, with 95 percent of major slips resulting in broken bones.

6. It takes about seven minutes for a wet-mopped spill to dry, meaning that the area is going to be extremely slippery during that time. A better solution is to use a dry paper towel to soak up and dry a spill.

7. Footwear accounts for 24 percent of all slip and fall accidents.

Enter Code at SafetySmartCompliance.com

QUICK CODE 1253