###
A preliminary report issued by the National Safety Council shows 6,771 Fall Protection Violations in 2009 so far (as of October) and up about 30% since 2008.
The report does not tally the dollar figure for the violations cited by OSHA, nor the litigation or settlement costs of any fall accidents for the same time period.
See the report here:
http://www.nsc.org/Pages/OSHAReportsonTop10SafetyViolationsfor2009.aspx
###
Monday, November 2, 2009
Fall Protection Violations Are Up and 2nd in top 10 Violations in 2009 So Far!
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: Fall Protection, National Safety Council, OSHA, Violation
Friday, October 30, 2009
OSHA Issues RECORD-BREAKING Fines to BP, More than $87,000,000!
What is a life worth? What is safety worth? Well in this case, with the fines, legal fees, damage to reputation and good will, and actual costs incurred - it is measured in the $B's of dollars ...
Taken from OSHA National News Release, U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Communications
09-1311-NAT
Oct. 30, 2009
Contact: Diana Petterson Elizabeth Todd
Phone: 202-693-1898 972-850-4710
US Department of Labors OSHA issues record-breaking fines to BP
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) today announced it is issuing $87,430,000 in proposed penalties to BP Products North America Inc. for the company's failure to correct potential hazards faced by employees. The fine is the largest in OSHA's history. The prior largest total penalty, $21 million, was issued in 2005, also against BP.
Safety violations at BP's Texas City, Texas, refinery resulted in a massive explosion — with 15 deaths and 170 people injured – in March of 2005. BP entered into a settlement agreement with OSHA in September of that year, under which the company agreed to corrective actions to eliminate potential hazards similar to those that caused the 2005 tragedy. Today's announcement comes at the conclusion of a six-month inspection by OSHA, designed to evaluate the extent to which BP has complied with its obligations under the 2005 agreement and OSHA standards.
"When BP signed the OSHA settlement from the March 2005 explosion, it agreed to take comprehensive action to protect employees. Instead of living up to that commitment, BP has allowed hundreds of potential hazards to continue unabated," said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. "Fifteen people lost their lives as a result of the 2005 tragedy, and 170 others were injured. An $87 million fine won't restore those lives, but we can't let this happen again. Workplace safety is more than a slogan. It's the law. The U.S. Department of Labor will not tolerate the preventable exposure of workers to hazardous conditions."
For noncompliance with the terms of the settlement agreement, the BP Texas City Refinery has been issued 270 "notifications of failure to abate" with fines totaling $56.7 million. Each notification represents a penalty of $7,000 times 30 days, the period that the conditions have remained unabated. OSHA also identified 439 new willful violations for failures to follow industry-accepted controls on the pressure relief safety systems and other process safety management violations with penalties totaling $30.7 million.
"BP was given four years to correct the safety issues identified pursuant to the settlement agreement, yet OSHA has found hundreds of violations of the agreement and hundreds of new violations. BP still has a great deal of work to do to assure the safety and health of the employees who work at this refinery," said acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Jordan Barab.
The BP Texas City Refinery is the third largest refinery in the United States with a refining capacity of 475,000 barrels of crude per day. It is located on a 1,200-acre facility in Texas City, southeast of Houston in Galveston County.
A willful violation exists where an employer has knowledge of a violation and demonstrates either an intentional disregard for the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of 1970, or shows plain indifference to employee safety and health. A penalty of up to $70,000 may be assessed for each willful violation.
A notification of failure to abate can be issued if an employer fails to correct a cited condition and the citation is a final order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. A penalty of up to $7,000 may be assessed for each day that the violation remains uncorrected.
Under the OSH Act, OSHA's role is to promote safe and healthful working conditions for America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, outreach and education. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov/.
###
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
BOMA Supports the ANSI / IWCA I-14.1
BOMA (the International Building Owners and Managers Association) fully endorses and supports the ANSI / IWCA I-14.1 Window Cleaning Safety Standard, now a National Concensus Standard of OSHA, and used extensively for citations in support of fines, fees and also being used by attorneys to litigate accidents, negligence and risk issues.
The full link (as of 2009, Oct 28) here: http://www.boma.org/Advocacy/Standards/Pages/WindowCleaningSafetyStandard-IWCA1-14.1.aspx
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
What is a Personal Fall Arrest System?
Confused about what is a personal fall arrest system (PFAS) and more importantly, the rules for anchorage of PFAS?
OSHA defines a PFAS in at least three separate documents:
- 1910.66 Appendix C (I) (b) [for General Industry]
- 1915.151(b) and 1915.159 [for Shipbuilding]
- 1926 Subpart M Appendix C [for Construction]
- "Personal fall arrest system" means a system used to arrest an employee in a fall from a working level. It consists of an anchorage, connectors, a body belt or body harness and may include a lanyard, deceleration device, lifeline, or suitable combinations of these.
- "Personal fall arrest system" means a system used to arrest an employee in a fall from a working level. It consists of an anchorage, connectors, body belt or body harness and may include a lanyard, a deceleration device, a lifeline, or a suitable combination of these. As of January 1, 1998, the use of a body belt for fall arrest is prohibited.
- "Personal fall arrest system" means a system used to arrest an employee in a fall from a working level. It consists of an anchorage, connectors, a body belt or body harness and may include a lanyard, deceleration device, lifeline, or suitable combinations of these.
The intent of PFAS is that when and if the primary suspension line(s) break or fail, the secondary or safety lines that CATCH the falling worker must absolutely NOT FAIL as this becomes the ONLY thread that is SAVING the worker's life.
All parts of the system as described in the definitions must not fail, particularly when the dynamic loads are applied as the falling worker and / or his equipment decelerates when his connection (hopefully via a shock absorbing type of lanyard) to the building anchor comes tight.
It's what (may) protects an employee from (serious) injury or death in the event of such failures. This is what a lot of people may overlook when building maintenance is being performed.
The PFAS should be designed to prevent the worker:
- from falling more than just a few feet
- from contacting a lower level or obstructions
- from swinging in such a way as to contact the building with a significant force
- from being injured by the impact of his body harness against his body
- from being injured by overly excessive deceleration (e.g., shock, impact, whiplash, etc.)
One thing is certain, the laws of physics and their effects on the PFAS system components do not change, regardless of what industry you may find yourself, therefore, it is imperative to follow "Best Practices" across all industries to raise the bar on SAFETY as the #1 goal of any suspended work.
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: 1910.66, 1915, 1926, Fall Arrest, Fall Protection, OSHA, Personal Fall Arrest System
Monday, October 26, 2009
Types of Falls
The most general type of falls involving buildings are "falls from roof". Another category, usually for new construction sites, is "falls from roof structural member".
Falls from roof can be from "unprotected" walking surface, that is, no guard rail or no parapet wall of proper height. This is quite common, and can be easily avoided.
There is another particular classification of falls, the "falls thru roof", as follows:
- roof opening
- sky lights
- non-supportive materials (old, weak, deteriorated)
- unspecified
Many falls are caused simply due to carelessness or lack of fall prevention equipment. Most fall injuries can be avoided or minimized via the use of fall protection equipment.
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: Falls from roof
Fall Statistics
The source of this information is OSHA, the Department of Labor (DOL), or the Center for Disease Control (CDC):
- 14% of all fall accidents are fatal.
- Since 1992 serious injuries and fatalities due to falls have been on the rise in spite of new regulations and better operations and practices.
- In 2006 there were 809 fall accident fatalities in the USA; from roofs, unprotected walks, ladders, scaffolding, staging, etc.
- Surprisingly, the distribution of falls of various heights from 6' to over 100' is roughly evenly spread out. Fatalities from falls of under 6' are rare. Falls to hard surfaces tend to be more fatal (abrupt deceleration causes severe unjuries, head injuries substantial).
- Falls cost businesses over $170B a year in medical, wages, lower productivity, lower morale and other negative impacts.
- The actual number of non-fatal fall accidents is unknown, as not all are reported.
- The costs of litigation and settlements is unknown.
- The costs of OSHA citations can be quite substantial.
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: Business Costs, Fall Protection, Fall Statistics
Monday, October 19, 2009
The OSHA "General Duty" Clause
Each employer has a fiduciary responsibility for safety and safe working conditions.
According to OSHA Act of 1970 // SEC. 5. Duties
(a) Each employer -- (1) shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees; and (2) shall comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this Act.
(b) Each employee -- shall comply with occupational safety and health standards and all rules, regulations, and orders issued pursuant to this Act which are applicable to his own actions and conduct.
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: Death, Fatality, Fiduciary Responsibility, General Duty Clause, Hazard, OSHA, Safe Employment, Safe Workplace
Friday, September 25, 2009
OSHA Annual Inspection - Don't Forget to Inspect *AND* Keep Records!
Don't forget your OSHA Annual Inspections of your roof anchors and engineered fall protection systems and window cleaning equipment - a competent person (qualified person) shall inspect roof anchors, davits, horizontal lifelines and other permanently installed fall protection and prevention and window cleaning equipment on buildings each and every year.
See our post about the OSHA requirements per the ANSI/IWCA I-14.1 from August 2008. See also the OSHA code 1910.66 at http://www.OSHA.gov, regarding inspecting. And, specifically ...
1910.66(g)(2)(i) "Related building supporting structures shall undergo periodic inspection by a competent person at intervals not exceeding 12 months." And ...
1910.66(g)(2)(iii) "The building owner shall keep a certification record of each inspection and test required under paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. The certification record shall include the date of the inspection, the signature of the person who performed the inspection, and the number, or other identifier, of the building support structure and equipment which was inspected. This certification record shall be kept readily available for review by the Assistant Secretary of Labor or the Assistant Secretary's representative and by the employer."
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: 1910.66, Anchors, Annual, ANSI, Davit, Fall Preventions, Fall Protection, Fiduciary Responsibility, Horizontal Lifeline (HLL), I-14.1, Inspection, IWCA, OSHA, Qualified Person, record keeping
Monday, September 14, 2009
No Fall Guy on Twitter
Our feed on Twitter is now working!
http://www.Twitter.com/NoFallGuy
Also see our Twitter feed in our side bar.
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Fallacy of Fall Protection From Manually Rigged Horizontal Lines
Over the past several years, we have seen many a "jury rigged" fall protection "system" on the roof tops of buildings. By this we mean a chaotic assembly of hand-tied ropes and / or cables, attached to roof vents, plumbing, HVAC equipment stands, conduits or other 'structures', thus spreading the 'load' of the suspended worker(s) and their powered platforms or boatswain chairs, or the load of a worker falling from an unprotected roof edge or walking / working surface.
FIGURE:1
Effect of a rigged horizontal line being used to suspend a 1,250 lb. working load, when the sag is only 1.2" and the line is 20' in length; the load in the line is 41,663 lbs. !!! Sag must be sufficiently increased so the load in the line is less than 5,000 lbs.
Problem #1
Ropes are suspect materials that degrade over time due to ultra-violet rays from the sun, due to heat exposure, due to chemicals in the air, due to mold and water damage, and due to friction and rubbing from use and being dragged on asfault and tar rooftops. Thus with age, ropes do not have a particular strength rating that can be guaranteed, unless they are perfectly maintained, cleaned and cared for.
Problem #2
Tieing knots in ropes weakens them by as much as 70%, and the knot itself could come loose. There is no way to eliminate the human element as a variable with knots.
Problem #3
The arrangement of the ropes and cables may in fact spread out the load, but how do you know that the peak load applied during a fall incident isn't being more applied to one or another of the structures, knots or ropes in the 'system' of rigging. This isn't a system and since the arrangement of structures could be multi-variant distances, it is very difficult to calculate the lengths of rope and the angles being created by them.
Problem #4
None of the structures being attached to have ever been pull-tested by a qualified person, have never been reviewed by a licensed professional engineer for structural integrity to support the maximum dynamic load that could be applied, and could by damaged by the ropes and cables being wrapped around them. Such damage could be latent water leaks, dents, strains, bending; such damage could affect the safe and proper operation of the electrical, plumbing, HVAC or other systems on your building. Latent water damage could create a mold problem and a toxic air problem in your building, which could costs many tens of thousands of dollars to fix.
Problem #5
When a load is applied to a horizontal line, in about the center of that line, that load is not divided in half, as most people think. The only way the load is exactly divided in half, is if the horizontal line sags so much, that it is effectively two (2) vertical lines. In other words, the sag would have to be very large as compared to the distance between the two (2) points that horizontal line is attached to.
The reality is, if the sag is nearly zero (0), then the forces within the horizontal line are greatly multiplied. A way to visualize this is to imagine a 1 lb. weight being suspended between two people with a 20' length of rope. Let's assume the rope has no weight.
If the people pull on the rope just enough to lift the 1 lb. off the ground, the sag will be about 5', and the tension in the rope experience by each person will be about 1.25 lbs..
Now, if the two people pull on the rope as hard as they can, so as to lift that 1 lb. weight higher off the ground (not to bounce it, but in a slow and steady motion), that rope becomes flatter and flatter, the sag becomes smaller and smaller, and the force they experience becomes greater and greater.
They find it more difficult to lift that 1 lb. weight higher and higher off the ground. If they pull so the sag is only 1', the tension force in the rope will be 3.33 lbs.. If they continue to pull so that the sag is only 0.1', then the tension will be 33.33 lbs.!
OSHA demands fall protection anchors have safety factors built in, thus OSHA requires a 5,000 lb. force of maximum dynamic load before fracture or pull-out with anchors.
If sag is very small dividing 5,000 by 33.33 gives 150 lbs. -- that means a 150 lbs. person would be able to fracture or bend a certified anchor when suspended from the middle of a 20' horizontal line that has only 0.1' of sag. If the sag is reasonably large, say 1' on a 20' line, then dividing 5,000 by 3.33 we get 1,500 lbs.
Properly engineered and installed horizontal lifelines have the proper sag built-in, or they have tension sensing devices and deploy extra length of line in order to create the extra sag needed to relieve the system of excessive force that might damage the building or the anchorages or the cable itself.
Engineered horizontal lifelines are designed with OSHA / ANSI / IWCA compliant anchor points and intermediate anchors that are connected to a building and tested to withstand the ultimate dynamic loading that may be applied.
Any anchor that deforms, fractures, bends or otherwise doesn't return to it's original position and condition is defective and non-conforming - unknown loads or excessive loading can and will damage even certified anchors, so care and caution must be taken to avoid inadvertent misuse.
Finally, suspending from a manually rigged horizontal lifeline is EXTREMELY hazardous and should never be undertaken. Lives would be in danger.
Rarely will any reputable fall protection company design a horizontal cable for the purposes of performing suspended work, particularly because of the complexities of such a design and because of the risks involved.
Suspended work must ONLY be done using certified safety anchors, davits and proper transportable equipment and/or permanently installed equipment, with a written safety plan approved by the site owner / developer / fiduciary.
Good luck and be safe!
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: Cable, Engineer, Force, Hazard, Horizontal Lifeline (HLL), OSHA, Qualified Person, Rigging, rope descent system, Sag, Tension
Monday, September 7, 2009
Certain OSHA Regulations Regarding Working at Heights
Transportable (Mobile) Outriggers
1910.66(f)(3)(ii)(A) “… outriggers may be used as a method of suspension for ground rigged working platforms where the point of suspension does not exceed 300 feet (91.5 m) above a safe surface…”
1910.66(f)(3)(ii)(B) “… outriggers shall be used only with self-powered, ground rigged working platforms.”
1910.66 (f)(3)(ii)(I) “…outrigger shall be tied-back to a verified anchorage on the building…”
Roof Rigged Davit Systems
1910.66(f)(3)(iii)(B)(1) Access to and egress from the working platform shall be from a safe surface. Access or egress shall not require persons to climb over a building's parapet or guard railing; and
1910.66(f)(3)(iii)(B)(2) The working platform shall be provided with wheels, casters or a carriage for traversing horizontally.
Ground rigged davit systems
1910.66(f)(3)(iii)(C)(1) The point of suspension shall not exceed 300 feet (91.5 m) above a safe surface…
1910.66(f)(3)(iii)(C)(2) Access and egress to and from the working platform shall only be from a safe surface below the point of suspension.
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: 1910.66, Anchors, Davit, OSHA, outrigger, powerd platform
ANSI / IWCA 1-14.1 Important Lifesaving Standard Guidelines
CERTAIN OSHA CONCENSUS STANDARD CODES FROM IWCA/ANSI I-14.1-2001
Section 4.2 Means and Methods
4.2.2 Existing buildings without the means and methods to safely clean its windows shall be provided with such a system and/or employ methods complying with the provisions of this standard.
Section 5.7 Rope Descent Systems (RDS) [such as boatswain chair]
5.7.10 While suspended, window cleaners shall not reach further than six (6) feet in any direction as measured from the plum line of the suspension point on the bearing point of the building...
5.7.12 ... On descents higher than 130 feet, provisions thall be made for stabilization. Such provisions may include: a) continuous, b) intermittent, c) workstation (suction cups). Descents shall not exceed 300 feet above grade unless the windows cannot be safely and practicable accessed by other means.
5.7.16(b) The securing of a rope to an anchor with a knot is permitted providing the specific knot does not decrease the initial breaking strength of the rope below 5,000 pounds...
5.7.16(c) All ropes shall be protected from contact with any surface that may abrade, sever, weaken or damage it.
Section 5.8 Transportable Suspended Powered Platforms
5.8.10 Transportable ground rigged suspended platforms shall not be used above 300 feet unless the platform can be continuously stabilized.
Section 15 - Transportable Suspended Powered Platforms
15.14.1 Buildings with service drops exceeding 130 feet in height shall provide a wind sway protection system, consisting of either continuous mullion track guides, intermittent stabilization, work station stabilization or angulated roping. When only work station or angulated roping stabilization is possible, descents shall not exceed 300 feet.
15.15.1 Ground rigged scaffolding may be suspended from roof support equipment provided the height of suspension does not exceed 300 feet unless continuous engagement is employed to provide wind sway protection.
15.17 Powered Boatswain's Chairs... must comply with all provisions of Section 15
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: ANSI, boatswain chair, I-14.1, IWCA, means and methods, OSHA, outrigger, Powered Platform, rds, rope, rope descent system
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Boatswain Chair Usage With Safety Tieback Anchors; Angles for Lifelines
Standard Interpretations 04/19/2006 - Safe tieback angles for controlled boatswain's chairs.
• Standard Number: 1910.28; 1910.28(j); 1910.30; 1910.30(g)(2)
April 19, 2006
Mr. Gus Strats
5406 Duke Court
Frederick, MD 21703
Dear Mr. Strats:
Thank you for your November 3, 2005, letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA's) Directorate of Enforcement Programs. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation only of the requirements discussed and may not be applicable to any questions not delineated within your original correspondence. You had specific questions regarding tiebacks for suspended access work. Your question has been restated for clarity.
Question: 29 CFR 1910.28(j) requires tiebacks to be perpendicular to the face of the building. Would a tieback angle of 25 degrees from perpendicular be permissible for controlled boatswain's chairs used in window cleaning?
Response: We understand that you would like us to address your question with respect to federal Occupational Safety and Health requirements. It should be noted, however, that the State of Maryland operates its own occupational safety and health program under a plan approved by the U.S. Department of Labor and may have requirements different from or in addition to those of federal OSHA. For this reason, it is important to keep abreast of current changes in the State's plan for Maryland employers.
Feel free to contact:
Jack English, Acting Assistant Commissioner
Maryland Occupational Safety and Health
1100 N. Eutaw Street, Room 611
Baltimore, MD 21201
(410) 767-2215
The federal §1910.28 standard for scaffolding applies to suspended work with boatswain's chairs. If the work in question is performed by boatswain's chairs as used in this standard, then the tiebacks must be 90 degrees to the face of the building as specified in §1910.28(j). However, the April 10, 1990, proposed revisions to the Walking and Working Surfaces standards (55 Federal Register (FR) 13360) would allow tiebacks on boatswain's chairs to be "approximately" perpendicular to the structure face, as stated in the proposed paragraph §1910.30(g)(2) (55 FR 13406). Where an employer is in compliance with the provisions of a proposed standard, it is OSHA's general policy to treat the violation of an existing requirement as a de minimis violation. A de minimis violation does not result in a citation, or penalty and need not be abated.
OSHA is unable to determine a specific angle that would be unsafe, because a safe tieback angle would depend on several factors, such as the distance from the parapet or roof edge to the anchor point. In determining whether a tieback was attached at a safe angle, OSHA would use appropriate outside references and the information gathered at the site. If the work practices in question would be equally safe as the requirements of the standard, individual employers could apply to OSHA for a variance from 29 CFR 1910.28 to permit the use of tiebacks at a 25-degree angle.
Pursuant to the OSH Act, OSHA has the authority to issue an order, relieving an individual employer from its obligation to comply with a particular standard, if the employer demonstrates that "the conditions, practices, means, methods, operations, or processes used or proposed to be used by an employer will provide employment and places of employment which are as safe and healthful as those which would prevail if he complied with the standard." 29 USC §655(d). If an employer was acting in accordance with a variance that OSHA issued, the Agency would not issue a citation.
In order to obtain additional information on the variance process, you may direct your inquiry to:
U.S. Department of Labor/OSHA
Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities
Ms. Ruth McCully, Director
Room N3655200
Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20210
(202) 693-2110
Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the General Industry Enforcement at (202) 693-1850.
Sincerely,
Richard E. Fairfax, Director
Directorate of Enforcement Programs
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: 1910.28, 1910.30, boatswain chair, Interpretation, OSHA, perpendicular
OSHA Interpretation of Single Point Anchor for Simultaneous Usage
Standard Interpretations 03/08/2002 - Acceptable use of single point anchor systems for window cleaning operations.
• Standard Number: 1910.132(c)
March 8, 2002
Mr. Gus Strats, President
Summit Anchor Company
5406 Duke Court
Frederick, MD 21703
Dear Mr. Strats:
Thank you for your April 30, 2001 letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA's) Directorate of Compliance Programs (DCP). This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation only of the requirements discussed and may not be applicable to any questions-not delineated within your original correspondence. You had a question regarding an equipment tie back and lifeline tied off to the same anchoring point. Please accept our apology for the delay in responding to your letter. However, as you were advised by telephone, the response to your letter required extensive research, and several levels of departmental review, including legal analysis.
Question 1: In General Industry, does OSHA allow window cleaners to simultaneously tie off the equipment tie back and lifeline to the same anchorage point?
Reply: Although OSHA does not have a specific General Industry standard that addresses anchorages for equipment tie-backs and lifelines, there is a general requirement for personal protective equipment at 29 CFR 1910.132. Section 1910.132(c) states that “personal protective equipment shall be of safe design and construction for the work to be performed.” Because the standard does not contain equipment specifications, OSHA would evaluate an employer's compliance with the requirement by consulting other sources of relevant information on safe design and construction.
In the context of window cleaning, one such source would be the recently published ANSI I-14.1-2001, which, at section 9.1.3, permits the simultaneous use of an anchorage as an equipment tie-back and lifeline anchorage if it is “capable of supporting the anchorage load factor multiplied by the combo of the fall arrest load and the tie-back load.”
Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations.
This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the Office of General Industry Compliance Assistance at (202) 693-1850.
Sincerely,
Richard E. Fairfax, Director
Directorate of Compliance Programs
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: 1910.28, Anchors, Interpretation, OSHA
Sunday, August 16, 2009
NoFallGuy on Twitter
We're on Twitter now at www.Twitter.com/NoFallGuy
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: Twitter
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Regulations for Fall Protection and Prevention at Extreme Heights
In window cleaning and other suspended work industries, there are specific regulations for work at certain heights. The breakpoints are at 130’ and 300’.
At 130’ intermittent stabilization anchors are required for powered platforms and some form of station stabilization is required for boatswain chair.
At 300’ no mobile outriggers are allowed which means permanently installed davits or other means are required, however the powered platform may be ground-rigged or roof launched, depending on the type of permanently installed equipment on the roof and the type of stabilization employed.
In certain instances, mobile or transportable structural outriggers may be used at heights exceeding 300’, but certain conditions must be adhered to.
Apparently, no OSHA-specific height restrictions exist for the usage of Controlled Boatswain’s Chairs, but the use of workstation stabilization is required at heights over 130’ and above.
CERTAIN OSHA REGULATIONS and CONCENSUS STANDARDS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
OSHA Regulations for Working at Heights
OSHA Concensus Standard Codes from ANSI / IWCA I-14.1
The following OSHA Interpretation Letters apply to 1910.66 and the I-14.1 ...
OSHA INTERPRETATION LETTER October 1, 1998
OSHA INTERPRETATION LETTER March 28, 2005
.
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: ANSI, boatswain chair, Extreme heights, I-14.1, IWCA, OSHA, outrigger, powerd platform, rds, rope descent system
Friday, July 24, 2009
OSHA Interpretation Letter of March 28, 2005
This OSHA Interpretation Letter was taken from http://www.osha.gov and outlines the rules regarding the ANSI / IWCA I-14.1-2001 and how it will be used in citations.
----------
OSHA enforcement of ANSI window cleaning standard; citing federal agencies under the General Duty Clause.
Standard Interpretations
Standards Numbered: 1910.66; 1960.8
March 28, 2005
Mr. David Marciniak Manager
General Services Administration
1800 F Street, NW Washington, DC 20405
Dear Mr. Marciniak:
Thank you for your June 4, 2004 letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA's) Office of Federal Agency Programs. Your letter was referred to the Office of General Industry Enforcement (GIE). Please be aware that this response may not be applicable to any situations not delineated within your original correspondence. You had specific questions regarding ANSI standards on window cleaning. The questions below have been restated for clarity.
Question 1: Will OSHA adopt the ANSI approved IWCA I-14.1-2001 Window Cleaning standard? Does OSHA plan to adopt the standard in the future?
Answer: OSHA's proposed rulemaking to revise the Subpart D — Walking and Working Surfaces and Subpart I - Personal Protective Equipment (Fall Protection) standards (55 FR 13360, April 10, 199) includes requirements applicable to window cleaning. In general, these provisions mirror those contained in IWCA I-14.1- 2001. As noted in the reopening of the rulemaking on May 2, 2003 (68 FR 23537), OSHA has included the 2001 update of the IWCA standard in the rulemaking record and may base some parts of the final rule on the ANSI standard if the record supports that action.
Question 2: Will OSHA reference the ANSI standard in enforcement citations?
Answer: OSHA does not cite for violations of ANSI standards that have not been adopted as OSHA standards, but ANSI or other industry standards are sometimes referred to in citations and used as evidence of hazard recognition or feasible abatement means.
Question 3: Which employer can be cited for violations of Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act?
Answer: Under OSHAct Section 5(a)(1), an employer "shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees" (emphasis added). For federal agency employers, OSHA does not cite for violations of Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act, but would cite for a violation of the federal agency equivalent, 1960.8, which states "The head of each agency shall furnish to each employee employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm."
Question 4: Should an accident occur due to failure of a safety measure, will OSHA reference current requirements or the ANSI standard?
Answer: If the hazard is addressed by a current OSHA standard, OSHA will cite the OSHA standard. If an accident is the result of a hazard not addressed by an OSHA standard, the hazardous condition may be citable under Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act. As noted in the answer to the previous question, an ANSI standard could be used to support an OSHAct Section 5(a)(1) citation.
Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information helpful. Please be aware that the enforcement guidance contained in this response represents the views of OSHA at the time the letter was written based on the facts of an individual case, question, or scenario and is subject to periodic review and clarification, amplification, or correction. It could also be affected by subsequent rulemaking; past interpretations may no longer be applicable. In the future, should you wish to verify that the guidance provided herein remains current, you may consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov/.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the Office of General Industry Enforcement at (202) 693-1850.
Sincerely,
Richard E. Fairfax, Director
Directorate of Enforcement Programs
Occupational Safety & Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20210
.
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: 1910.66, ANSI, Citation, I-14.1, Interpretation, OSHA
OSHA Interpretation Letter of October 1, 1998
This letter taken from http://www.osha.gov outlines rules for suspended work over 300' using a powered platform.
----------
OSHA INTERPRETATION LETTER
Standards Numbered: 1910.66(f)(3)(ii), 1910.66(e)(2)
October 1, 1998
Mr. Thomas J. O'Shea PE
President, Entek Engineering, LLP
200 Broadway,
Troy, New York 12180
Dear Mr. O'Shea:
This is in response to your letter of July 7, requesting compliance assistance from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding the Powered platforms for building maintenance standard 29 CFR 1910.66. We regret the delay in responding to your inquiry.
Your letter indicated that a building owner desires to clean the windows of a multi-story building by using powered platforms in accordance with 1910.66. The design of the building precludes the launching of the powered platform from the uppermost level.
Therefore, it is necessary to ground rig the platform from lower levels to structural outriggers at the top.
The building has some facades that will have to be rigged at heights up to 346 feet. As you are aware, 1910.66(f)(3)(ii)(A) sets suspension height limits for transportable outriggers at 300 feet above a safe surface, and references the tie-in guides in 1910.66(e)(2) of the standard.
However, OSHA would consider it a de minimis violation if the building and equipment installation is designed by a registered professional engineer demonstrating that the proposed method of suspension and securing of the powered platform will provide an equal or greater degree of safety for employees than one of the methods specified in the standard; the employer provides some mechanical means, such as mechanical winches, to raise and lower cable, lifelines, and wire rope during rigging installations; powered platforms are not rigged or operated in winds in excess of 25 miles per hour; the facade is provided with curtain wall mullion tracks for platform engagement and stabilization; and all other applicable 1910.66 provisions are met.
De minimis violations are violations of standards which have no direct or immediate relationship to safety or health and are not included in citations when an employer complies with the clear intent of the standard but deviates from its particular requirements in a manner that has no direct or immediate relationship to employee safety and health. These deviations may involve distance specifications.
Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Wil Epps of my staff at (202) 219-8041.
Sincerely,
Richard Fairfax, Acting Director
Directorate of Compliance Programs
.
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: 1910.66, Interpretation, OSHA
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
No Fall Company Mission and Vision
This blog is sponsored by No Fall Company, LLC, Southeast USA distributor of Tractel Fallstop Division products and services, and customized services such as inspections, certifications, design, planning, risk assessments, site evaluations, safety plans, and more.
Our Vision: Tragic and unnecessary fatal and traumatic falls from height can and will be prevented 100%.
Our Mission: Provide awareness, solutions, planning and risk mitigation to building constructors, owners and managers to help them prevent fatal and tragic falls at their sites, thus protecting businesses from losses and more importantly saving lives of those who work there.
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Florida Roofing Firm Fined $54,100 for 9 Violations
OSHA cited a Pompano, FL roofing company with 9 violations and $54,100 in fines 6 months after a worker fell 30 feet to his death., because this worker had no fall protection and also because the roofing company continued to expose workers to the very same hazard!
The complete article can be viewed at:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/sfl-bn-0311roofer,0,3202455.story
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: Citation, Death, Fall Protection, Fine, Florida, OSHA, Violation
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Engineered Fall Prevention System
In this photo clearly visible, certified anchors are being used for three purposes.
1) The first purpose is to anchor the counter-weighted outriggers solidly in place. These in turn are being used to suspend the ground-rigged powered platform.
2) The second purpose is to anchor the safety lines, one for each worker, to prevent their falling to their death in the event the platform or its suspensions lines fail.
3) The third purpose, not so apparent here, is to provision tie-offs for workers that will come within six feet (6') of the roof edge, sky light or other unprotected roof opening, in the event their is no parapet wall or guardrail (as depicted here) of at least 42" in height.
This redundancy, having independent, certified anchorages, and USING THEM, is what saves lives. Like wearing a seatbelt in your car, using safety equipment does work.
These anchors can be used interchangeably as primary (suspension) or secondary (safety) tie-offs. They can be used for powered platforms and rope descent systems (like bosun chair), as long as they are engineered to withstand the maximum dynamic loading (5,000 lbs. USA OSHA, 5,400 lbs. California OSHA).
Note some of the equipment is permanent, namely the anchors. They are attached to the structure of the building in such a way that neither the building nor the attachments nor the anchors will fail. These are certified for 10 years and need to be inspected every year per OSHA.
The non-permanent equipment (ropes, cables, carabineers, outriggers, counter weights, lanyards, body harnesses) are usually brought in by the sub-contractor (window cleaner, painter, water proofer, caulking, etc.). All this equipment must be well-maintained and meet stringent strength requirements - 5,000 lbs.
Often this mobile equipment can be corroded by acid rain, sun scorched, ultra-violate ray damaged, dented, bent, rusty via oxidation, cut, weakened, made of the wrong materials, or simply too old, and should be inspected by the users and supervisors and replaced if necessary.
Sometimes workers are tasked to tie-off their lines to whatever is on the roof of a building if it is not so equiped with certified anchorages -- this is very dangerous because "whatever" is probably not strong enough (or at least hasn't been proven to be) and tieing knots in ropes causes the ropes to be 70% weaker, plus, who knows for sure if the knot is sufficient?
There exists a vertical chain of responsibility that (a) the workers are trained, (b) they follow their Site-Specific WRITTEN Safety Plan, (c) their equipment is maintained properly, (d) there are certified, visible (easy to access and use) anchorages provided on the building.
This takes honesty and true adherence to safety if any and all sub-contractors are to bid their work on a level playing field and also, if all buildings are to provision safe working conditions per the OSHA General Duty Clause.
If nothing else, it's just the RIGHT THING TO DO.
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: Anchors, Certified, Fall Protection, Guarding, OSHA, Written Safety Plan
Friday, March 6, 2009
$70,000 OSHA Fine to Contractor in Massachusetts
This incident was "willfull" and the potential fall was 50' high - no fall occured and no injury occured. OSHA is doing the right thing!
http://safetyduck.blogspot.com/2009/03/i-just-dont-get-it.html
It's like getting people to wear seat belts (or helmets) - inconvenient, time consuming, uncomfortable - and it flies in the face of the "it won't happen to me" attitude. The fact is, people have car (and motorcycle) accidents and seat belts (and helmets) save lives, and prevent injury - at least as compared to not wearing one. Think about the costs to business of all the accidents that could be avoided. Think about the cost to businesses when a worker dies. Insurance companies should charge higher premiums to those who don't comply, and offer discounts to those who do (like safe driver programs). Workers who fail to wear their PPE should get fines (ie "tickets") every time it happens, and 3 strikes and you are out ("FIRED!"). If the employer or the property owner / manager or general contractor doesn't enforce this, they should be fined severely - and let those fines help pay for the financial bailouts (ha!).
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Fall Protection is the 3rd Most Cited Issue per OSHA
For 2008 there were nearly 5,000 violations of "Fall Protection" discovered by OSHA. They are getting serious about saving lives, and consequently, about writing citations and issuing fines. Numerous citations have been over $100,000. The cost of prevention and having the proper equipment is significantly less - do you want to play safety roulette?
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: Fall Protection, Fall Statistics, OSHA, Safety, violations
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Powered Platform Accident in Texas Closes Streets
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: Accidents, Fall Protection, Hazard, Liability, News, Rescue, Safety
Friday, September 19, 2008
ZERO TOLERANCE!
Here in the USA we suffer from a malaise that it's "accepted" that sometimes workers will fall and often resulting in fatalities (sometimes multiple deaths) or very tragic injury, lifetime disablement. This attitude and culture should simply not be tolerated.
Let's get Congress, the State legislatures, and Municipalities to pass laws & codes that make fall protection absolutely mandatory. Seatbelts are required in most states, because they save lives - and if you don't wear it, shame on you. Car seats for children are required nation-wide, because they save lives - if you don't put your child in it, shame on you. Helmets are required in most states for motorcyclists, because they save lives.
Fall prevention (restriction, limitation) saves lives by eliminating human error, by using warning lines, barriers, guarding, nets, or tie-back lines, which STOP people from going into hazardous areas.
Fall protection (injury reduction) saves lives by reducing significantly the shock on the human body in the event of a fall, when workers absolutely must enter a hazardous but necessary work zone.
Anti-fall legislation, regulation and standards help raise awareness, educate and force companies to implement life-saving devices. Fines and citations should be much more expensive to further cause the right behavior -- this is a no-brainer. Insurance companies should take note, because they often hav the burden of the multi-million dollar settlements or litigation.
The USA should have a ZERO TOLERANCE approach to fall protection & prevention!
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: Citation, Critical Injury, Death, Fall Preventions, Fall Protection, Fatality, Fiduciary Responsibility, General Duty Clause, Hazard, Lawsuit, Liability, Litigation, Settlements, Zero Telerance
Friday, September 12, 2008
Father's Fatal Fall
Wearing harness but not tied in to an anchor ...
DAD'S DEATH FALL
TRAGEDY IN HARLEM FOR BELOVED HARDHAT
By ERIK SHILLING and BILL SANDERSON
Posted: 3:47 am September 12, 2008 at New York Post
A construction worker described by his sobbing wife as "the support of his family" plunged four stories to his death yesterday when one end of his suspended-platform scaffold gave way from a Harlem building, authorities said.
Miguel Rodriguez's widow and 7-year-old son, Kevin, wept and hugged one another at the spot where he died yesterday afternoon.
"He was there for his son," said Berta Rodriguez, 40. "He was the support of the family. I stayed and took care of the kids, and he'd go out to work every day."
Miguel, 38, leaves another son, who is 17.
The Ecuadorian immigrant was wearing a safety harness, but it was not secured to anything that could have prevented his plunge from the fifth story of 266 W. 111th St. to a sidewalk shed four stories below, authorities said.
Officials weren't sure yesterday why the suspended scaffold fell. Hours after the tragedy, it was still dangling from the building by one rope.
Rodriguez arrived in the United States 16 years ago and lived with his family in Corona, Queens.
"Ecuador is very poor. He came for a better life," Berta Rodriguez said, calling her tragic husband "an excellent person - a great guy."
A grieving co-worker, who gave his name as Dionero, said of the victim, "He's a good guy. He doesn't even drink."
Berta said she is planning to return to Ecuador.
"I'm going to go back to my country with the boy," she said.
Buildings Commissioner Robert LiMandri, who visited the site, said, "These things shouldn't happen.
"If you are a construction worker, be safe. Wear your lifeline."
Buildings Department officials issued a full stop-work order and three violations against the scaffold operator at the building, which is being renovated by the city Department of Housing Preservation and Development.
Also yesterday, a construction worker in Brooklyn fell head-first from the sixth floor to the fourth floor of a building under renovation at 380 Union Ave. in Williamsburg, authorities said.
That worker, who was not wearing a safety harness, was in critical condition at Bellevue Hospital in Manhattan, officials said. They did not release his name or provide further details.
The Harlem death was the second this month of a construction worker who failed to properly use a safety harness.
Anthony Esposito, 48, a tower crane rigger, was about 40 stories up when he lost his footing on a crane platform at a construction site at 600 W. 42nd St. on Sept. 4.
bill.sanderson@nypost.com
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: Accidents, Critical Injury, Death, Fatality, Harness, News, Safety, Scaffold
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
News from the Bureau of Labor Statistics

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Bureau of Labor Statistics has just released its August 20, 2008 Report for 2007.
Since 1992 the fatal falls stat has increased 39% to 835, from 600. See the green trend-line in the chart, taken from the DOL BLS 2007 report.
This in spite of new and improved OSHA regulations and industry concensus standards such as the I-14.1-2001, not to mention most construction firms now have the new post of "Safety Director" to create safety manuals, monitor practices on site, prevent accidents before they happen. Unfortunately, there aren't enough OSHA inspectors for all the new construction and existing buildings too.
So what's happening here? Are people becoming complacent, not wearing their protective gear, or are they not being provided safe working conditions?
Safety is a #1 issue concerning many construction firms, building owners and managers, and the general public -- it is costing thousands of lives over the years, and is impacting loved ones, friends and families -- in some cases innocent bystanders are being killed or tragically injured.
It is also costing business billions in lost productivity and expense. Everyone is responsible for a safety culture and putting lives before dollars. How can we change this trend?
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: Accidents, Business Costs, Critical Injury, Death, Fall Statistics, Fatality, I-14.1, OSHA, Safe Employment, Safe Workplace, Safety
Fatal Falls in 2007 Sets a Record! (not good)
At the "pump handle", Christina Morgan writes there were 835 fatal falls in 2007, and, each and every one of them were (or should have been ) preventable... and the workers whose lives are literally hanging on the line everyday have come to the sad disposition that they have to live with these circumstances - that coming home to their families at the end of the day is a statistical probability, but not an absolute.
Please read here ---> http://thepumphandle.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/this-happens/
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: Accidents, Critical Injury, Death, Fall Statistics, Safety
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Got Safety?
We're pleased to announce another resource for analysis and research about falls and how to prevent them. Please see our Favorite Links section, or simply go to the GotSafety Blog. You'll also find recent fall accident news at Recent Fall Accident News and at Fall Accident List.
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Friday, August 15, 2008
Window Washers Die in 40-Foot Lift Tip-Over
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: August 5, 2008
Two cousins who were window washers fell to their deaths while working on a financial district building early on Tuesday, the police said.
They identified the victims as Robert Fabrizio, 35, of Las Vegas, and Garin Fabrizio, 37, of Milford, Pa.
The two were working in a crane at the World Financial Center when it tipped over shortly before 1 a.m., sending them and the machine crashing 40 feet to the ground, the police said.
The victims were taken to New York Downtown Hospital, where they were pronounced dead.
The Buildings Department, which has begun an investigation into the accident, said that it had no plans to issue any citations.
A version of this article appeared in print on August 6, 2008, on page B4 of the New York edition.
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: Accidents, Death, Falls from Lift, Fatality, Hazard, News, Safety
Firefighters Rescue Dangling Window Washers
Firefighters rescue dangling window washers
From: The Canadian Press August 15, 2008
Edmonton -- Two window washers who were left dangling by their safety harnesses after their platform collapsed beneath them yesterday were rescued from the side of the downtown Edmonton law courts building.
Firefighters got the workers down and one of the men was treated for a cut to the back of his head.
The cause of the accident is under investigation.
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: Accidents, Critical Injury, Harness, News, Rescue, Safety
Scaffold Blown Around Like a Kite in Miami
Caught On Tape: Construction Workers On Scaffold Whipped By Wind
POSTED: 9:19 am EDT July 16, 2008 / UPDATED: 9:50 am EDT July 16, 2008
MIAMI -- A viewer used his cell phone to capture video images of a scaffold swinging and shaking uncontrollably on a Miami high-rise Tuesday afternoon, and the stormy weather isn't over for South Florida yet.
Construction workers who were working on the Marquis Condo were actually on the scaffold when the winds began whipping it around the building.
"The storm came out of nowhere, and the winds blew them off the one side of the building all the way over to the other side of the building like nothing," said contractor Jeff Baliewitz. "They had no time to prepare or anything. They were just completely at least 20 feet away from the building, dangling in the wind."
No one was injured. Construction officials said workers could not immediately get off the scaffolding because it takes about 30 minutes to raise or lower it.
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: Construction, Danger, Intermittent Stabilization Anchor (ISA), News, Safety, Scaffold, Wind
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
ANSI / IWCA I-14.1-2001: an OSHA National Consensus Standard for Window Cleaning Industry
The ANSI / IWCA I-14.1-2001 is an OSHA National Consensus Standard. It has been referenced in several OSHA CITATIONS (found elsewhere in this blog) -- buildings new and old need to meet the requirements of this standard. A few highlights:
3.8 Fall protection, perimeter guarding, personal fall arrest systems … shall be provided for all work areas … that expose a worker to a fall hazard when approaching within 6 feet of an unguarded edge or skylight.
3.9 Building owners and window cleaning contractors shall not allow suspended work to be performed unless it has been determined that the building has provided, identified and certified anchorages …
4.1.1 All buildings where window cleaning is performed that employ suspended equipment shall be equipped with roof anchorages or other approved devices which provide for the safe use of the equipment in conformance with the provisions of this Standard.
4.2.2 Existing buildings without the means and methods to safely clean its windows shall be provided such a system and/or employ methods complying with the provisions of this Standard.
5.9.3 It shall be the building owner, manager or operating agent’s responsibility to have the installation inspected on a regular basis in compliance with OSHA 29 CFR 1910.66.
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: A120, Anchors, ANSI, Certified, Citation, Fall Arrest, Fall Preventions, Fall Protection, I-14.1, Inspection, IWCA, OSHA, Personal Fall Arrest System, Safe Employment, Safe Workplace, Visible
Window Washer Fatally Injured in Fort Meyers, FL
From: Wink News
Window washer falls 8 stories
By Althea Paul, WINK News
Story Created: Jun 15, 2007 at 1:20 PM EDT
Story Updated: Jun 16, 2007 at 6:56 PM EDT
South Fort Myers - Friday morning a window washer fell 8 stories and died. The accident happened around 8:30am in South Lee County.
According to the Lee County Sheriff's Office, the window washer was working at Sanibel Harbour Resort when he fell to his death.
The Lee County Sheriff's Office says the victim was on top of the building along with a trainee who had been on the job for a bout 2 weeks. They were both harnessed in chairs going over the sides when the accident happened. We're told the victim men went straight down the rope and he tried to grab on to it but he couldn't so he fell eight stories.
Officials say that he failed to hook up the equipment properly. The trainee says the victim was paying so much attention to him that he failed to connect his own gear correctly.
The victim has been in this line of work for 35 years. The trainee tells WINK News the victim has been identified as Tom Kott.
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: Accidents, Critical Injury, Death, Falls from roof, Fatality, News, Safety
Window Washer Critically Injured in Orlando, FL
Worker injured in fall off roof
ORLANDO---A window washer was critically injured Monday when he fell from the rooftop of Florida Hospital Orlando, police said. Jose Montalbo, 31, of Kissimmee suffered numerous broken bones and bleeding from his head, according to a police report. He was in critical condition late Monday at Orlando Regional Medical Center.
Why he fell is not yet known. Which window cleaning company Mr. Montalbo works for is not known. Why he was moved from Florida Hospital to the ORMC is not known.
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: Accidents, Critical Injury, Falls from roof, News, Safety
Saturday, January 5, 2008
New York City Window Cleaning Fall Accident 2007
In the national news Friday morning (Jan 4, 2008) was a report the surviving brother has improved significantly from this tragic accident. It’s being called “a miracle”. Imagine surfing a falling platform down the wall of a tall building! These are the creations of movies, not real life…
GOOGLE "new york city window cleaning accident"
It seems two mistakes may have lead to this event (a) a faulty platform / scaffold or faulty suspension lines and (b) workers not using safety lines independently tied off. If they suspected the platform was unsafe, as earlier reports stated, why wouldn’t they tie themselves off to safety tie-backs? The presumption is maybe there weren’t any tiebacks on the building.
Apparently, according to the news, the family of the deceased window cleaner has filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the building managers and scaffold company. No matter what the outcome, it will not bring him back.
Please forward to your friends and associates who are in the industry to help raise awareness of hazard identification, hazard reduction, fall protection, fall prevention and risk mitigation.
Be Safe, No Fall Company, LLC
Your Fall Protection & Prevention Experts
Engineering & Installation ◊ Consulting & Planning ◊ Testing & Certification ◊ Inspections
Email: Info@Fall-llc.com
Web: http://www.fall-llc.com/
Blog: http://nofallcompanyllc.blogspot.com/
Tractel, Ltd.: http://www.tractelswingstage.com/
Work Smart. Work Safe. Work to Live.
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: Accidents, Fall Preventions, Fall Protection, Hazard, Lawsuit, Litigation, News, NYC
Monday, October 22, 2007
What's in a Safety Plan?
OSHA requires that a fall protection & prevention Safety Plan be in written form, that it be between a building owner or its representatives and each subcontractor, and that it be signed by an authorized person from each party.
Note that each Safety Plan is site-specific, thus, it contains information unique to each and every building, because none are exactly the same. So, for every building-subcontractor combination, there should exist a unique, written, signed plan.
So what should the Safety Plan contain? Here is a simple outline:
- Employer responsibilities
- Supervisor responsibilities
- Worker responsibilities
- Company fall protection policy statement
- Site-specific fall protection work program
- Safety monitor responsibilities
- Hazard identification
- Fall protection types
- Equipment log
- Sign-off sheet
It is advisable to seek help in writing safety plans and assuring they contain all the information necessary for mitigation all fall risks and to prevent injury to workers.
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: Risk Averse, Risk Mitigation, Safety, Safety Plan
Monday, October 8, 2007
OSHA References to ANSI I-14.1
Building managers and engineers have been asking, "is the ANSI I-14.1 a requirement, is it a code that we must adhere to?"
For some, the answer isn't a clear "yes" or "no", but "it depends". Technically, there is a gray area here. We like to think that the answer is an emphatic YES!
Please see the links to OSHA below for our proof.
There are hardwired OSHA codes like 1910.66 that have been on the books for years. These are "requirements". Then, there are numerous National Concensus Standards that OSHA refers to. Some have become regulations by virtue of "incorporation by reference", and there are others that have not become fully enforced codes (yet).
OSHA will never write a specific code for every single industry, for every single scenario or conceivable event - it's too daunting. Rather, there is a set of "rules" that should govern the behavior of owners, managers, contrators and employees. There is the set of "cases" where OSHA has levied citations and / or recommended actions to abate the cause of the accidents. This is becoming a body of knowledge, or "common law" as it may be.
Attorneys may use this body of knowledge to zeolously persue their cases. There have been a number of multi-million dollar cases over the years.
If your company's policy and culture leans toward being safe vs. getting a job done fast or cheaply, then the answer is Yes, the ANSI I-14.1 is a requirement. The reason is very logical - follow the "do no harm" principle, follow the fiduciary principle of the General Duty Clause in OSHA, follow common sense, do those things that promote goodwill, boost morale, increase productivity, reduce medical leave, reduce insurance premiums, increase safety track record (which is an asset).
If the fear of having a tragic accident at your site, possibly fatal, and if litigation, the possibility of litigation, or the high expense of settlements doesn't urge you to use common sense, the following references by OSHA during accident investigations to the ANSI I-14.1 may help raise your awareness a little.
This is a sampling of such references and may not be an exhaustive list:
OSHA Inspections & Citations with SIC and Link
Inspection_ID Citation_ID SIC URL
305549388 01001 7349
http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment.violation_detail?id=305549388&citation_id=01001
305697161 01001 2011
http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment.violation_detail?id=305697161&citation_id=01001
306227091 01001A 7349
http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment.violation_detail?id=306227091&citation_id=01001A
303991582 01001 7349
http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment.violation_detail?id=303991582&citation_id=01001
304440048 01001 7349
http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment.violation_detail?id=305550048&citation_id=01001
305158149 01001 7349
http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment.violation_detail?id=305158149&citation_id=01001
Think safety is job #1.
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: 1910.66, ANSI, Citation, Fiduciary Responsibility, General Duty Clause, I-14.1, OSHA
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Who's Responsible if an Anchor is Loose?
A building manager asked recently who's responsible if one of the anchors on the building roof is loose. The original installer should warrantee the work for at least a year from the date of substantial completion. The manufacturer should warrantee the product for at least a year. If the installer and / or manufacturer cannot or will not correct the problem, then you might contact another anchor installation company for help.
First and foremost is to mark any loose anchors and DO NOT LET ANYONE USE THEM because if the anchor breaks free from the building, and it is being used for a safety line at that time the user will fall to their death or be seriously injured.
Next, determine how the anchor is attached (clamp-on, bolt-on, weld-on, epoxy-on) and determine if it can be accessed from the underside of the roof without damaging the waterproofing topside.
Generally, the weld-on and epoxy-on anchors cannot be repaired from below. Clamp-on and bolt-on anchors usually have hardware (nuts, bolts) that can be retightened. Sometimes the metal stretches slightly over time or expands due to temperature changes.
The annual anchor system inspection will usually pick up on any loose, damaged, bent, decayed or coroded anchors.
If you have any re-roofing or other work done on the roof that affects an anchor in any way (or the entire anchorage system), then the 10-year certification must be redone on those anchors that are affected.
You should have on file a State licensed engineer stamped drawing showing the anchors and structural detail and a logbook showing the initial install pull-test results for each anchor. With each annual inspection the results are entered into the log book.
If you have buildings where anchors were installed years ago, and there is no logbook and drawing as proof of certification, they should be evaluated as to proper layout, proper construction, each anchor’s load bearing capability, correct attachment to building and the building’s load bearing ability at each anchorage attachment.
Other conditions such as low parapet wall height (or too high), unprotected walking surfaces and leading roof edges and other fall hazards not originally addressed by the legacy anchor system should be resolved.
Even heights of 6’ can cause severe injury or death. Often this is fixed by using an adjustable retractable lanyard in combination with properly located anchors, or, a horizontal lifeline system that traverses the perimeter of the fall hazard area.
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: Certified, Horizontal Lifeline (HLL), Inspection, Loose Anchors
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Safety Tieback (Anchor) Rules
These are the general rules of thumb for locating safety tieback anchors - as per the ANSI / IWCA I-14.1-2001.
- Never closer than 6' from unprotected roof edge or insufficient parapet wall or from a leading edge with a drop of 6' or more
- Never more than 50' from the roof edge
- No more than 12' apart
- No closer than 6' apart
- Placed inline with the work, that is, so that the suspension line intersects the roof edge perpendicular, or, no more than 15 degrees off perpendicular
Other related rules:
- Ultimate load strength must be 5,000 lbs. (5,400 in CA)
- The building attachment point must be able to handle the ultimate load
Check back soon for more details, and reference to OSHA regulations and or standards.
The Meaning of Safety as it Pertains to Building Maintenance
If one reads all the OSHA regulations regarding the location of tiebacks (safety anchors), the strength or holding power, setbacks and spacing rules, it becomes clear that if you are in "construction" vs. "shipyards" vs. "general industry" different interpretations are possible. We like to think of safety as a concept and that it extends to all facets of a building, operations, training, equipment, people, awareness, education, the use of known good practices.
In 2001 an amazing thing happened. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) adopted another "standard". Sidebar: standards are norms, they are what collections of reasonably knowing individuals agree to be the 'best practice' or the proper distance or the correct manufacturing process or the ideal methodology, etc. etc. etc..
This new standard is the International Window Cleaning Association (IWCA) I-14.1-2001. Even the International Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) adopted this standard. It is a collection of guidelines targetted at the window cleaning industry to help save lives. Period.
This set of guidelines is actually a culmination of existing OSHA regulations combined with that set of newer thoughts toward helping mitigate risks associated with working at heights, on roofs, near skylights, unprotected roof edges, descending off roofs using a myriad of types of equipment.
Historically, the window cleaning industry was very unregulated, and it suffered from a very high fatality and high serious injury rate.
The I-14.1 is not to be confused with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) A120 standard which is also endorsed by ANSI and in this case "incorporated by reference" into OSHA regulations. The A120 is a set of guidelines specifically targetted at powered platforms. The I-14.1-2001 encompasses that, or defers to it, and it covers other equipment used for window cleaning, as well as what equipment should be installed on buildings to accomodate safe working conditions.
Note that much more is done in building facade maintenance. Window caulking, sealing, painting, pressure washing, repairs, security cameras, practically any kind of maintenance and repair work on a building being performed when suspended from the roof could qualify under this standard.
Some people are confused as to whether the standard applies to them, if they are not under "general industry". Our thinking is that since the laws of physics don't change regardless of your industry, then if the practices and methods are proven, known to reduce fatalities or the risks of death and serious injury, and reduce damage to property, then why not use common sense and go with the flow?
In October of 2006, the I-14.1 became what's known as a "national concensus standard" and is referenced by OSHA. This doesn't mean it is law or a new set of regulations. It does mean that OSHA might refer to it if there is an accident when it does it's investigation and makes suggestions as to how to avoid similar accidents again. There are countless cases of falls from heights found on the OSHA web site.
While you can't necessarily be cited by OSHA for not following the I-14.1 a wise man might assume that in the event of serious injury or death, any aggressive law firm would pursue the issue ... under the general duty clause ... that says basically, "do no harm". Escaping liability or fidiciary responsibility will come at a price no matter what.
We are not legal experts, but the idea that being negligent may relate to not doing the right thing when the right or better thing is available. It's that simple.
We are about safety - and doing the right thing means that providing the best working conditions, particularly when someone's life is literally hanging in the balance, is the way to go.
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: A120, ASME, Best Practices, BOMA, Fiduciary Responsibility, I-14.1, IWCA, Liability, Negligence, OSHA, Risk, Safety
Monday, September 3, 2007
Common Links
For all of the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, simply follow this link to OSHA. Once there, you can do searches on topics like "fall protection" or go directly to certain codes like 1910.66 for General Industry.
For the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), use this link to ANSI.
For the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA), use this link to BOMA.
We'll setup specific links to certain fall related topics for your convenience. Check back soon.
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: 1910.66, Fall Protection, OSHA
Friday, August 31, 2007
Welcome Message
Welcome to the No Fall Company, LLC Fall Protection and Prevention blog. Thank you for visiting. Here you'll find recent news regarding fall accidents, OSHA regulations, standards such as the I-14.1, ways to prevent fall accidents and other industry-related safety topics.
This site is intended as an informational service only. We welcome questions and comments, anything that promotes safe working practices as they relate to the General Duty Clause of OSHA to provide a safe working environment, pertaining to suspended work and working at heights, or near potential fall hazards.
Author: David Kuketz,
No Fall Company, LLC
0
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS
Links to this post
Labels: Blog, General Duty Clause, Hazard, I-14.1, OSHA, Welcome





