View
1.229
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Slides from Thom Kramer's Fall Protection session presented at ASSE's Virtual Symposium.
Citation preview
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. [email protected] and (937) 259-5120
Michael A. Shell, P.E., Qualified [email protected] 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. [email protected] and (937) 259-5120
Michael A. Shell, P.E., Qualified [email protected] and (937) 259-5179