5.1: Activities Chapters 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 - Construction Safety

Reflection: What tools and equipment do you use to do your work?

Were you trained on it's correct use? What type of physical hazard is present when using the tool or equipment? How do you manage or control the hazard? Consider guidance referenced in Tool and Shop Safety.

Flash Cards: Definitions and Key Terms

This interactive feature not available in print version of this workbook

Query \(\PageIndex{1}\)

Standard Mapping-Applying hierarchy of controls to tool and equipment standards in operating instructions and procedures

Standard Sections of interest

• 1926.300 General Requirements 
• 1926.302-Power operated tools 
• 1926.306-Air Receivers 

Review link to power tools and their associated specifications and if there is a link/pdf to operating instructions that as well. Look at clues from the specifications to determine what standards might be applicable regarding safe operation of the tools below and:

• List(code and what it says) them along with the potential hazard the regulation would address.
• Also note if you believe it is an engineering control or a work practice control. See Hierarchy of Controls.
• What PPE is most likely required?

Links to power tools

https://www.grainger.com/product/HUSQVARNA-Asphalt-52CM03 

https://www.grainger.com/product/RIDGID-Water-Jetter-13C596 

https://www.grainger.com/product/RIDGID-Pipe-Threading-Machine-Kit-42XD40 

https://www.grainger.com/product/PORTER-CABLE-Fixed-Base-Router-2NDZ4

Case Study-Fatality

The case below addresses a concern with the increased usage of rental equipment by individuals who have not had formal training on the proper and safe use of the equipment. In your discussion groups, identify the safety and health program failures that led to the worker fatality. This incident occurred at a private residence. How might the worksite have contributed to incident? How did the employer business practice contribute the fatality?

A Laborer Dies When He is Pulled into a Tree Stump Grinder Case Report: 18CA002

SUMMARY

A laborer working for a landscaping company died when he was pulled into a tree stump grinder. The victim was helping the landscaping company owner (stump grinder operator) guide the machine by pulling on a rope tied around his waist and attached to the stump grinder. The rope caught in the stump grinder’s grinding wheel and pulled the victim into its rotating motion.

Investigation

On April 9, 2018, at approximately 11:30 a.m., a 66-year-old Hispanic male laborer suffered fatal injuries while assisting a landscaping company owner who was operating a stump grinder. The employer of the victim was a family-owned and operated landscaping company that has been in business for over 20 years. According to the owner, he was the sole employee of the business. The employer occasionally hired the victim to help him with landscaping jobs. The employer spoke Spanish as his primary language, but also spoke and understood English. The victim was was a relative of the owner and had been working sporadically with him for about six months

The landscaping company did not have a written safety or Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) or any other safety documentation required by law. Neither the owner nor the victim had received formal training on the operation of stump grinders. Previously, they were provided with brief general instructions about stump grinder operation from the tool rental companies, but no specific instructions were given in this incident. The company owner was not trained in first aid or CPR.

The incident scene was a private residence located on a short cul-de-sac street. The residence was a two-story home with an attached garage. The tree involved in this incident was an approximately 50-foot sycamore in the front yard of the residence. Sycamore trees can grow to a height of 40 to 100 feet with a spread of 40 to 70 feet at maturity. Sycamores are often divided near the ground into a massive trunk with an aggressive root system that can be difficult to remove.

On the day of the incident, the owner and the victim attached a rope to an eye hook on the disc guard of the stump grinder (Exhibit 2) to help lower the machine below ground level to grind the stump and roots. The rope was not removed from the machine. The victim tied the rope around his waist, then pulled and leaned backward to help maneuver the grinding wheel while the owner was operating the stump grinder. A neighbor from across the street stated the victim was standing near the edge of the stump cavity. As the grinder was operating, the rope likely became slack and then caught around the grinding wheel, pulling the victim headfirst into the rotating disc.

Stump Grinder

A stump grinder is a power tool that removes tree stumps by means of a rotating grinding wheel with carbon steel teeth that chips away the wood. Stump grinders can be the size of a lawn mower or as large as a truck. Most accomplish their task by means of a high-speed disk cutter wheel with fixed carbon steel teeth that grinds the stump and roots into small chips. The grinding wheel movements are controlled by hydraulic cylinders that push the wheel laterally, and up and down, through the stump. Stump grinding is generally performed by a trained arborist or landscaper, but the machine may be rented by anyone from tool rental companies. The manufacturer’s instruction manual warns against allowing additional workers within 75 feet while grinding. There are various types of stump grinders, some of which are larger and could have better reached the stump and roots involved in this incident. If a stump grinder needs to be used to reach the roots below ground, a thorough job assessment should be performed to determine the proper machine that can reach the roots from above.

Mini-Lecture Tool and Equipment Safety

Reflection: What are the physics of electricity and electrical circuit parameters?

Which parameters are the primary focus of electrical safeguarding? Take a look at the label on the power supply for your laptop or other electronic device and list all safety certifications/symbols. Choose one of the OSHA Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories (NRTLs)and provide details on its likely purpose for the device.

Flash Cards: Definitions and Key Terms

This interactive feature not available in print version of this workbook

Query \(\PageIndex{1}\)

Standard Mapping-Applying hierarchy of controls to electrical equipment and procedures

Portable fuel powered electric generators are increasingly used as back up power in homes and in commercial applications. However this equipment is also used on construction worksites by general and subcontractors. In this activity you will map construction safety standards to specific safety warnings and procedures for a portable generator. Choose 10 items from page 3 ( Important Safety Instructions) of the Ryobi Generator Safety Instructions and 10 items from page 4 (Specific Safety Rules) that map to the standards below and choose the standard section i.e. 1926.404 Wiring Design and Protection that the warning/procedure/rule is most likely associated with:

Table 1

Standard Subpart	Safety Procedure (pg 3)-Standard Section	Safety Rule(pg 4)-Standard Section
Example-1926 Subpart C-General Safety	Wipe spilled fuel from the unit-1926.24	Save these instructions-1926.20
Section 5(a)(1)-General Duty
1926 Subpart C-General Safety and Health
1926 Subpart D-Occupational Health
1926 Subpart E-Personal Protective Equipment
1926 Subpart F-Fire Protection and Prevention
1926 Subpart G-Signs, Signals, Barricades
1926 Subpart H-Materials Handling
1926 Subpart I-Tools-Hand and Power
1926 Subpart K-Electrical
1926 Subpart AA-Confined Spaces in Construction

Case study-fatality

Discuss in your group the specifics of the case below. Find three 29CFR1926 Subpart K standards not followed that appear to have contributed to this incident. Where on the hierarchy of controls are those standards? Discuss and debate how you would classify skills and training for electricians on the hierarchy of controls.

City Electric Maintenance Worker Electrocuted While Installing Lines for Security Cameras – Ohio  

NIOSH FACE Report 2019-01
July 29, 2021

SUMMARY

On June 17, 2019, a 48-year-old city electric maintenance worker was electrocuted, while installing lines for security cameras along a residential area cul-de-sac. The electric maintenance worker arrived at the city workshop at 7 am and was instructed to install approximately 2,000 feet of triplex service wire on the light poles along a residential street for police surveillance cameras. The electric maintenance worker arrived at the work site at 10:24 am, with 2,000 feet of triplex service wire on a roll and placed the boom truck under light pole #1. He proceeded to install the triplex service wire on the first light pole connecting to light pole #2. According to a GPS tracker in the elevated bucket truck, the electric maintenance worker turned the elevated bucket truck around and drove up the street to position the truck in front of a newly placed camera pole. The 1,300 volt electric power lines running to the housing development were adjacent to the newly placed camera pole and beyond these lines were 3-phase 7,200 volt power lines. The electric maintenance worker got in the basket and raised it to approximately 28 feet. He began pulling some triplex service wire and installing it on the security pole. It is believed the worker did not realize his proximity to the power lines while performing this task and contacted his right shoulder with the energized power line. At 1:32 pm 911 was contacted because a residential home had experienced flickering lights and heard a loud noise. At the scene, the responders from the fire department found a truck with a raised basket in the air and a hard hat on the street. Once the fire department ladder truck was raised above the basket, the responders saw the electric maintenance worker laying on the floor of the basket. There was indication that a power line had arced, burnt through, and landed on the ground. The electric maintenance worker had signs of electrical burns on his right shoulder, hand, and clothing. He was pronounced dead on the scene at 2:28 pm.

 

Mini-Lecture-Electrical Safety

Reflection: Scaffold vs Ladder

Create a list of activities or tasks that would require a ladder and scaffold, identify hazards and hazard categories associated with both types of safety equipment. Which piece of equipment requires more mental focus and effort during its use, in your opinion? Which leaves a worker more susceptible to mental and physical fatigue?

Flash Cards: Definitions and Key Terms

This interactive feature not available in print version of this workbook

Query \(\PageIndex{1}\)

Case study- Scaffold fatality

In your groups discuss the specifics of the case below. Identify the safety and health program failures. What specific scaffold safety standards were not followed? How are the social justice concerns discussed in Chapter 0 relevant to the incident below? What cultural issues may have played a part in the worker's death. Lastly, in many local, county, and state jurisdictions anyone performing construction type contract labor must be licensed to do so. How may a contractor license contribute to safer working conditions.

SUMMARY
California FACE Report #11CA002

A day laborer fell approximately 12 feet off a scaffold at a private residence. The victim was applying a stone and stucco façade to the exterior of the home when the incident occurred. The victim was hired by the homeowner’s gardener from a street corner to perform the work. The victim rented, assembled, and was working from the scaffold when the incident occurred. The scaffold was erected without guardrails and the walk board was not secured. The victim was not wearing any type of fall protection.

Investigation

On Wednesday, January 12, 2011, at approximately 3:00 p.m., a 40-year-old Hispanic day laborer who worked as a construction worker died when he fell from a scaffold approximately 12 feet to the ground below. He was born in Mexico and completed nine years of education. The victim spoke only Spanish. The gardener who hired him also spoke Spanish, but the homeowner did not. The victim had worked in the Los Angeles area for the past five years. There was no documentation available to determine the victim’s experience or training in masonry. There was also no documentation available to determine the victim’s qualifications, training, or experience working with scaffolds.

The site of the incident was a private residence. The home owner had asked his gardener if he knew anyone who could reface the exterior of his home with a stone and stucco facade. The gardener hired the victim from a street corner to perform the work. The victim rented a scaffold from a local home improvement store and used it to access the exterior of the house. The victim rented five-foot scaffold frame sections, diagonal braces (two for each section), a walk board, and a side and end panel that were to be used as guard rails on the top section of the scaffold.

The victim erected the scaffold but it was leveled using improper methods. The walk board was not properly secured, and the guard rails on the top portion were not attached. He then used the scaffold to gain access to the upper portions of the home’s exterior wall. The victim was working alone off the scaffold walk board, approximately 12 feet above ground level and was not wearing any fall protection devices. The victim worked for two days performing the job. On the third day, he continued applying the stucco and stone façade. At one point, the victim reached for a cell phone that was being handed to him by the homeowner’s gardener. The walk board shifted and he fell off the scaffold to the ground below.

 

Mini-Lecture-Scaffold Safety

Reflection: Have you slipped, tripped or fallen lately?

Analyze your last misstep, slip, trip or outright fall. What were the surface conditions? What shoes were you wearing? What were you thinking about right before? Which condition or cause was most responsible for the misstep? How could it have been prevented?

Flash Cards-Definitions and Key Terms

This interactive feature not available in print version of this workbook

Query \(\PageIndex{1}\)

Case study- FAT/CAT Fall scenario development

Choose a fall fatality from the FAT/CAT. Create a plausible pre-fall scenario, precursor to the fall that may have realistically contributed to the fatality. What type of fall prevention methods would have prevented the death.

Mini-Lecture-Fall Hazards, Fall Protection

Reflection Aerial Lifts vs Personnel Lifts?

Conduct a search on Aerial Lift, Personnel Hoist, Personnel Lift. Describe what you find either by copy and paste of pictures or written descriptions of equipment. What are your observations? Why might they be associated with cranes?

Flash Cards-Key Terms and Definitions

This interactive feature not available in print version of this workbook

Query \(\PageIndex{1}\)

Case Study-Fatality

In your discussion group, identify the crane operator errors and the rigger/rigging errors. Which competent person do you believe was most at fault or bore the most responsibility? Which type of hazard resulted in the worker death, "struck by" or "caught in between/crushed by? In your opinion, what other issues are revealed in the summary?

Commercial Roofer Died When Struck by a Falling Load of Palletized Roofing Material  

Michigan Case Report: 09MI049

Summary

In the summer of 2009, a 48-year-old male commercial roofer, working on a roof, died when a load of shrink-wrapped roofing material, weighing approximately 1,900 pounds fell 20-30 feet from a 40-inch by 50-inch wooden pallet being transported overhead by a tower crane. The decedent’s supervisor, who was the roof man (signal person) for the lift, was working in another area of the roof clearing space for the pallet of rolled roofing material to be placed. The rigger placed a ratchet strap around the roofing bundle, and then “basket-rigged” the wooden pallet with two slings, both of which were 28-foot long, 2-inch wide polyester slings. The slings were connected to a ½-inch by 19-foot 2-inch leg spreader equipped with 10-inch hooks and a master ring that was connected to the crane’s hook. The slings were placed through the fork lift sleeves of the pallet. The rolls of roofing material were not secured to the pallet. The rigger indicated the load was ready to be hoisted to the roof. As the rigger observed the load being raised, he did not note any load instability or imbalance. The crane operator lifted the load approximately 20-30 feet above roof level, and then began to transport the load to the placement area. This involved swinging the load over the area where the decedent and his coworkers had been assigned to work by the supervisor. The crane operator noticed the roofing rolls were beginning to fall from the pallet. The crane operator yelled out a warning to the workers. The rolls of roofing material fell from the pallet and struck the decedent. The coworkers called for emergency response, unhooked the ratchet strap, and removed the roofing materials from the decedent. Emergency response provided care, and the decedent was transported to a local hospital where he was declared dead.

 

Mini-Lecture Crane Safety

Reflection: How is your driving record in construction road work zones?

Approximately 609 workers in road work zones were killed between 2011-2015. Share your observations and personal experiences from traveling through road work zones. How aware do you feel workers in those zones are of their surroundings?

Flash Cards: Definitions and key terms

This interactive feature not available in print version of this workbook

Query \(\PageIndex{1}\)

Video Traffic Control

Traffic Control Safety

Transcript

Utililty Safety in Workzones

Transcript

Traffic Control Devices

Transcript

Case study-Traffic Control

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is incorporated by reference in the OSHA standards. In your discussion groups, identify any deficiencies you see in the control of the work zone where the fatality occurred. How could the flagger have been better protected?

Flagger Dies after being Struck by a Pickup Truck in a Highway Work Zone  

New York Case Report 04NY012

Summary

On February 20^th, 2004 a 47 year-old male flagger, who was employed by a temporary employment service agency, was struck by a pickup truck driven by a traveling motorist in a highway work zone. At the time of the incident, the victim and another flagger were directing traffic on a state highway for a tree service crew that was trimming branches to clear the power lines that belonged to a local utility company. On the morning of the incident, the crew had closed two lanes of a three-lane highway and had left only one southbound driving lane open to all traffic, both northbound and southbound. Warning signs were placed ahead of the work zone at each end. The victim, who wore a reflective vest and a hard hat, was directing the southbound traffic with a “Stop/Slow” sign at the north end of the work zone. At approximately 9:05 a.m., a black pickup truck suddenly pulled out of the southbound traffic into the passing lane and accelerated to approximately 60 miles per hour (mph) into the work zone. The victim was struck by the vehicle and thrown in the air by the impact. He landed on the northbound shoulder approximately 30 feet from the collision point. The emergency squad and the New York State Police (NYSP) arrived at the incident site within minutes. The victim was transported by helicopter to a hospital trauma center where he died thirteen days after the incident from the injuries sustained in the collision. The driver of the pickup truck was arrested for multiple traffic violations.

The victim completed a flagger training course provided by the National Safety Council through the temporary employment service agency and became a certified flagger in January of 2004. According to the employment agency representative, the agency discussed general flagging safety with the flaggers, while worksite host employers at each specific site were responsible for site-specific safety. The employment agency issued the following personal protective equipment to the flaggers: ANSI certified reflective vests and hard hats.

Details of Investigation

The incident occurred on a major state highway that runs south to north from New York City to the New York State border with Canada. A local utility company contracted a tree service firm to trim branches and cut brush along the power lines adjacent to the highway. Two flaggers were hired from a temporary employment agency to direct traffic at the work site. The section where the tree trimming was taking place was a three-lane highway with one northbound and two southbound lanes. A double yellow line demarcated the northbound and southbound lanes. There was a solid white line on both sides of the highway and a dashed white line delineating the two southbound lanes. The roadway curved toward the east at both ends of the work zone. The speed limit in the area of the incident was 50 mph.

At the time of the incident, the victim was standing at the north end of the work zone in the closed southbound passing lane behind a line of traffic cones. He was directing the flow of the southbound traffic with a “Stop/Slow” sign. The victim communicated visually with the other flagger at the south end of the work zone. At approximately 9:05 a.m., the southbound traffic was slowly approaching the work zone. According to the traveling motorists who witnessed the incident, a black Ford F350 Super Duty Pickup truck suddenly pulled out of the traffic into the closed passing lane. The vehicle passed several vehicles that had slowed down in the open driving lane, and accelerated into the work zone. The victim ran towards the northbound lane to avoid the rapidly approaching vehicle. According to the NYSP collision reconstruction report, the pickup truck began braking at this point and then swerved into the northbound lane and struck the victim. The victim was thrown in the air by the impact and landed on the northbound shoulder approximately 30 feet from the collision point. The victim was taken to a hospital trauma center where he died on March 4^th from the injuries sustained in the collision.

 

Mini-Lecture-Signs, Signals, Barricades

Reflection:Excavation Hazards

All construction focus 4 hazards are present when excavation activities are underway. Choose one of the top five excavation hazards (cave-ins, water accumulation, underground utilities, falls, heavy equipment operations) and propose a focus 4 (falls, electrocution, struck by, caught in between/crushed by) safety protocol for addressing that hazard during excavation work.

Flash Cards: Definitions and key terms

This interactive feature not available in print version of this workbook

Query \(\PageIndex{1}\)

Case study- Excavation fatalities

Relevant Standards

• Excavations 1926.650 
• Excavations 1926.651 
• Excavations 1926.652

Activity

Reference the handout for the case studies 13, 22, 31, 61 and cite 3 relevant regulations from the excavation standards that should have been followed in order to prevent the accidental death or injury in the case. Cite 2 other standards from another construction safety subpart that would have also been a factor in preventing the fatality.

Mini-Lecture-Excavations

Reflection: Ladder setup?

Have you ever setup and used a A-frame ladder or extension ladder? What was the reason? Recognizing that ladders are safety equipment and either used for access to higher level only, or access to higher level to perform a task, if you were to access the ladder to perform a task, what might that be? How does the requirement to maintain 3 points of contact and staying centered on the ladder impact your ability to do the task?

Flash Cards: Definitions and key terms

This interactive feature not available in print version of this workbook

Query \(\PageIndex{1}\)

Case study- Ladder Inspection

After watching the following Video-Ladder Safety 101, use the Cal/OSHA Ladder inspection guidelines to inspect a personal ladder or employer's ladder. Compare your inspection results with your discussion group members. What did you learn in performing the inspection? Identify two inspection requirements that are engineering controls and two that would be categorized as a work practice control.

Ladder Safety 101

Transcript

Cal/OSHA Ladder Inspection Guidance

Mini-Lecture-Ladder Safety