THE DEADLY CELL TOWERS – WHEN FAILURE
TO PROPERLY TRAIN, EQUIP OR SUPERVISE WORKERS HAS DEADLY CONSEQUENCES
OSHA
issues new directive to keep communication tower workers safe
WASHINGTON - The Occupational
Safety and Health Administration has updated its Communications Tower
directive regarding the use of hoist systems used to move workers to
and from workstations on communication towers. This follows an alarming
increase in preventable injuries and fatalities at communication tower work
sites.
More
fatalities occurred in this industry in 2013 than in the previous two years
combined. This disturbing trend appears to be continuing, with nine worker
deaths occurring so far in 2014.
"This
directive ensures that communication tower workers are protected regardless of
the type of the work they are doing on communication towers," said Dr.
David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and
health. "Employers and cell tower owners and operators must make sure
workers are properly trained and protected."
The
directive outlines the proper use of hoist and other fall arrest systems and
includes detailed information on how to hoist people safely. The directive
updates a 2002 enforcement policy, which only covered the hoisting of workers
to workstations during new tower erection activities. The updated policy covers
any work on a communication tower - including both maintenance and new
construction - that involves the use of a hoist to lift workers from one
elevated workstation to another.
The
release of the new directive is the latest in a series of actions OSHA has
taken to improve cell tower safety. The agency is collaborating with the National
Association of Tower Erectors and other industry stakeholders to
ensure that every communication tower employer understands how to protect
workers performing this high-hazard work.
OSHA
sent a letter to communication
tower employers urging compliance and strict adherence to safety
standards and common-sense practices. OSHA has also created a new Web page targeting the issues
surrounding communication tower work. This outreach follows a November 2013 memo
to OSHA's compliance officers and regional administrators mandating
increased attention, education and data collection on the industry. OSHA
continues to investigate past incidents and will issue the results as they
become available. Communication towers are on the agency's regulatory agenda
and OSHA expects to issue a Request for Information later this year.
Under
the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for
providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA's role is to
ensure these conditions for America's working men and women by setting and
enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more
information, visit www.osha.gov.
Prior
to the 1980s, communication and broadcast tower erection, servicing and
maintenance was a very small and highly specialized industry. Over the past 30
years, the growing demand for wireless and broadcast communications has spurred
a dramatic increase in communication tower construction and maintenance.
In
order to erect or maintain communication towers, employees regularly climb
towers, using fixed ladders, support structures or step bolts, from 100 feet to
heights in excess of 1000 or 2000 feet. Employees climb towers throughout the
year, including during inclement weather conditions.
Some
of the more frequently encountered hazards include:
- Falls
from great heights
- Electrical
hazards
- Hazards
associated with hoisting personnel and equipment with base-mounted drum
hoists
- Inclement
weather
- Falling
object hazards
- Equipment
failure
- Structural
collapse of towers
In
2013, OSHA recorded a total number of 13 communication tower-related
fatalities. In the first half of 2014, there have already been nine fatalities
at communication tower worksites. This represents a significant increase in
fatalities and injuries from previous years, and OSHA is concerned at this
trend. OSHA is working with industry stakeholders to identify the causes of
these injuries and fatalities, and to reduce the risks faced by employees in
the communication tower industry.
Compliance
Assistance
Standards
Resources
Training
- New
FCC and DOL announce wireless apprenticeship program. The Wireless
Infrastructure Association is orchestrating the Telecommunications
Industry Registered Apprenticeship Program (TIRAP).
Recent
Citations
- New
Wireless Horizon tower collapse results in deaths of 2
cell tower workers: OSHA finds 2 willful, 4 serious safety violations at
Blaine, Kansas, work site. OSHA News Release, (2014,
September 25).
- New
Cell tower company cited by OSHA for safety hazards
following fatality in Clarksburg, West Virginia, tower collapse in
February 2014. OSHA News Release, (2014, July
31).
- Louisiana cellular tower company cited by US Department
of Labor's OSHA following worker fatality. OSHA Regional
News Release, (2013, December 5).
Incident
Investigations
Communications
Tower
The
following communications tower incidents have been investigated by OSHA. Most
of them were reported to OSHA, or OSHA learned about them from news reports,
etc. There have been tower incidents that OSHA did not investigate because they
were not reported to OSHA as required.
- November 22, 2013, Optica Network Technologies,
Wichita, Kansas. A 25-year-old worker performing
cell tower maintenance was killed when he fell 50 feet.
- August 17, 2013, Custom Tower, LLC, Louise, Mississippi. A worker
installing microwave dishes on a cell tower was killed when he fell 125
feet. The worker, who was not using a double lanyard, fell after
disconnecting his positioning lanyard to reposition himself.
- August 12, 2013, Transmit PM LLC, Coats, NC. A worker
performing installation services for Sprint under the direction of
Alcatel-Lucent died from a fall.
- July 8, 2013, Monarch Towers, Mountrail County, ND. Two workers
were adding structural supports to a 300 foot tower. One worker fell and
struck the other, causing them both to die from a 250 foot fall.
- May 28, 2013,
Byrd Telecom, Georgetown, MS. Workers were raising a new
antenna to the top of a tower to make the tower taller. While installing a
hoisting device to raise the boom a cable broke, causing two men to fall
to their deaths.
- April 3, 2013, Excell Communications, Birmingham, AL. No fatality,
injury - Worker survived a 140 foot fall.
- April 5, 2013, S25 Towerserv, LLC, Franklin, PA. Two employees
were hoisting new equipment on a tower, one employee was at approximately
190 feet, the other at 140 feet. The equipment being hoisted came loose
striking the lower employee causing him to fall.
- March 19, 2013,
Eduardo Corona, Laredo, TX. While installing the last
10-foot section of a 90 foot tower, the bottom section collapsed, causing
one employee to fall to the ground and die.
- January 4, 2013, Ws Consulting & Construction,
Mount Vernon, Washington. Employee fell 80 feet and died,
had fall protection gear on, but the fall protection anchorage point
failed.
- August 11, 2011, Hayden Tower Service, Inc.,
Brookfield, MO. A worker dismantling a cellular
tower fell 80 feet and later died in the hospital.
- August 3, 2011, Sink Tower Erection Co., Hollister, NC. A worker was
making modifications to 300 foot cellular tower when he fell 50 feet and
was killed.
- June 27, 2012, Midwest Steeplejacks, Inc., Lisbon, ND. Employee was
on a 300-foot telecommunication tower wearing an ExoFit XP Tower Climbing
Harness equipped with a positioning device and twin lanyards, using only
one tie-off point. Employee unhooked his positioning device to reposition
himself, and fell approximately 153 feet and died.
- October 12. 2011, Ultimate Tower Service, Inc., Newton,
MA.
An employee was killed from fall while installing a new ladder on a 1000
foot tower.
Additional
Information
Wireless
Horizon tower collapse results in deaths of 2 cell tower workers
OSHA finds 2 willful, 4 serious safety violations at Blaine, Kansas, work
site
OSHA's inspection found that the equipment
the company provided the workers was in poor repair. The company did not use
proper engineering plans to ensure the workers were protected against this type
of collapse
BLAINE,
Kan.
– Following the death of two workers from the collapse of a cell tower they
were dismantling March 25, the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety
and Health Administration has cited Wireless Horizon Inc. for two willful and
four serious safety violations. OSHA placed the company in the Severe Violator
Enforcement Program* following the incident. So far in 2014, 11 workers have
lost their lives nationwide in the communication tower industry; and 13 deaths
occurred in 2013.
"Two
families have lost their loved ones in a preventable tragedy. No one should
ever have to endure that loss. Inspecting and ensuring equipment is in good
working order is a common-sense safety procedure that stop injuries and
fatalities," said Dr. David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for
occupational safety and health. "OSHA expects tower owners and operators,
such as Wireless Horizon, to protect their workers on job sites in this
hazardous industry by increasing training and implementing all known safety
precautions. Our nation's growing need for telecommunications should not cost
workers their lives."
The
tower technicians, ages 25 and 38, were using a load-lifting gin pole attached to the side
of the tower with a wire rope sling. The sling failed, causing the gin pole to
fall and bring the tower down with it. One of the employees was above the gin
pole near the top of the tower, and the second employee was approximately 20
feet below the pole. Both workers fell to the ground during the collapse. As
the tower fell, it also struck an adjacent tower, causing it to crumble as
well. One of the employees had been with the company two months, while the
other employee had only been working there for five months when the incident
occurred. OSHA's inspection found that the equipment the company provided the
workers was in poor repair. The company did not use proper engineering plans to
ensure the workers were protected against this type of collapse.
OSHA's
investigation found that Wireless Horizon failed to inspect the wire rope
slings prior to use and provide protection to the slings when rigged over sharp
objects. These failures resulted in the issuance of two willful violations. A
willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary
disregard for the law's requirements, or with plain indifference to worker
safety and health.
Wireless
Horizon also failed to conduct an engineering survey and develop a rigging plan
prior to beginning the demolition process. Additionally, the company did not
provide the technicians a load chart for the gin pole in use or operator
manuals. OSHA issued four serious citations for these violations. A serious
violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious
physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or
should have known.
OSHA
has proposed penalties of $134,400 for the company, based in St. Peters, Missouri.
Wireless Horizon employs approximately 60 workers, including four that were
present at the Blaine job site on the date of this fatal incident.
This
company has been inspected by OSHA on two previous occasions since 2005, and
OSHA issued multiple serious violations both times.
Wireless
Horizon has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply; request
an informal conference with OSHA's area director in Wichita, Kansas, or contest
the findings before the independent Occupational
Safety & Health Review Commission.
To
ask questions; obtain compliance assistance; file a complaint or report
workplace hospitalizations, fatalities or situations posing imminent danger to
workers, the public should call OSHA's toll-free hotline at 800-321-OSHA
(6742).
Under
the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for
providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA's role is to
ensure these conditions for America's working men and women by setting and
enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more
information, visit http://www.osha.gov.
#
# #
Cell
tower company cited by OSHA for safety hazards following fatality in
Clarksburg, West Virginia, tower collapse in February 2014
New US Department of Labor
OSHA directive seeks to protect communication tower workers
CLARKSBURG,
W.Va.
– Following the collapse of a Clarksburg communication tower in February 2014
that seriously injured two and claimed the lives of two employees and a
volunteer firefighter, S and S Communication Specialists Inc. has been cited
for two serious workplace safety violations. The citations issued to the
Hulbert, Oklahoma-based company follow an investigation by the U.S. Department
of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
S
and S Communication Specialists was contracted to perform structural
modifications to an existing cellular communication tower.
The modifications included replacing diagonal bracing and installing leg
stiffeners and new guy wires on the structure. The tower collapsed while the
employees were removing diagonal bracing.
"These
deaths are a painful reminder of the dangers associated with communication
towers, and are at the root of OSHA's directive on communication tower
construction activities," said Prentice Cline, OSHA area
director for Charleston. "OSHA is concerned about the alarming increase in
preventable injuries and fatalities at communication tower work sites. The
agency is collaborating with the National Association of
Tower Erectors and other industry stakeholders to ensure that every
communication tower employer understands how to protect workers performing this
high-hazard work."
Thirteen
workers lost their lives in the communication tower industry in 2013, more than
the previous two years combined. This year, nine worker deaths have occurred in
this industry to date.
OSHA
inspectors cited the company for violating section 5(a)(1) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act for directing employees to remove diagonal
structural members on communication towers without using temporary braces or
supports, and for allowing employees to be tied off to bracing that was not
capable of supporting at least 5,000 pounds. A serious violation occurs when
there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could
result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.
The
company was assessed a $7,000 penalty for each of the two violations, which is
the maximum amount allowed by law for a serious violation, and has 15 business
days from receipt of its citations and proposed penalties to comply, meet
informally with OSHA's area director, or contest the findings before the
independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
To
ask questions, obtain compliance assistance, file a complaint or report
workplace hospitalizations, fatalities or situations posing imminent danger to
workers, the public should call OSHA's toll-free hotline at 800-321-OSHA (6742)
or the Charleston Area Office at 304-347-5937.
Under
the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and
healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA's role is to ensure these
conditions for America's working men and women by setting and enforcing
standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more
information, visit http://www.osha.gov.
US
DOL – FCC joint Event on communication tower safety and apprenticeship.
Several
articles were compiled on the joint FCC and OSHA effort to protect cell tower
workers including the following:
- Perez:
The Cell Phones in our Pockets Shouldn't Come at the Expense of Workers'
Lives.
EHS Today, (2014, October 20).
- New
rules would protect cell tower workers. The Hill, (2014, October 14).
- FCC,
Labor team to save tower workers' lives. Broadcasting & Cable, (2014,
October 14).
- Department
of Labor, FCC announce wireless apprenticeship program. RCR Wireless
News, (2014, October 14).
On July
18, 2008, a 55-year-old male communications tower worker died after falling 60
feet from a self-supported tower to the ground. On the day of the incident, the
decedent and three other workers were performing structural upgrades to a
280-foot-tall communications tower in southern New Jersey. Two workers,
including the victim, were stationed on the southeast face of the structure at
a height of 60 feet. While the victim was preparing to ready his position to
finish working, he fell backwards from the tower to the ground, and died
instantly. NJ FACE investigators recommend that these safety guidelines be
followed to prevent similar incidents:
- Tower
workers should utilize a separate fall protection system when employing
vertical lifelines or controlled descent devices.
- Communication
tower employees should be trained on the proper use of tower climbing and
fall protection equipment.
- A
safety and health plan based on a job hazard analysis should be developed
by the employer and followed for each tower climb where workers are
assigned tasks.
Introduction
On July
18, 2008, a Federal OSHA compliance officer notified NJ FACE staff of the death
of a 55-year-old worker who was killed after falling 60 feet from a
communications tower. A NJ FACE investigator contacted the employer and
arranged to conduct an investigation, which took place on August 25, 2008.
During the visit, the NJ FACE investigator interviewed the immediate supervisor
and colleagues of the decedent. Additional information was obtained from the
medical examiner’s report, OSHA communication tower experts, and the OSHA
compliance officer’s final report.
Of the
three workers on the tower the day of the incident, the victim had the most
experience (>5 years) as a communications tower worker; one had been at the
company for about five years and the other was relatively new. Employee health
and safety training, as well as job training, was conducted on site by the
employer.
Investigation
The
incident occurred on a hot, humid, July day with low wind. The self-supported
communications tower was situated in an off-road wooded area that had been cleared
for the tower and its equipment. Three workers were assigned to change out
steel diagonal structural members on the tower in preparation for new
communications equipment that was to be installed. Stronger grade steel was to
be installed in place of the existing diagonals at the 20-60 foot elevation and
the 120-160 foot elevation of the 280-foot tower. The crew arrived on site at
approximately 8:30 am. By 9:10 am, they had begun changing out the steel
diagonals at the 20- and 40-foot elevations on the northeast face of the tower
(the tower is pyramidal in shape; see Figure
1), which was completed at 10:25 am. The work ropes, which ran
through pulleys to raise and lower loads and lifelines, were being relocated to
the southeast tower face (seen in Figure
1). At about 10:45 am, the decedent (Worker #1) and a second crew
member (Worker #2) were working at a height of approximately 60 feet on the
southeast face of the tower. Each of the workers was attaching a 0.5 inch line,
which was fed thorough a controlled descent device called a “Fisk,” in order to
begin work on that face. These lines, which also functioned as lifelines, were
attached to the tower via an anchor strap that was fastened to a horizontal
member (see Figure
1). The lifeline was fed through the metal ring on the anchor strap.
The workers also each had a harness strap, which was connected to the anchor
strap. None of the workers had a separate fall protection system.
The two
workers attached and tested the lines. Worker #1 began to lower into a working position
and suddenly fell to the ground. A coworker called 911, and police and rescue
workers arrived at the scene. The responders did not find any vital signs, and
the victim was pronounced dead at the scene via telemetry.
As noted
above, the anchor strap was affixed to one of the horizontal beams of the
tower, and was used as the connection point of the lifeline and harness strap.
The victim had on a harness with various pieces of equipment attached; a
lifeline was connected that also contained an in-line Fisk (the controlled
descent device; see Figure
2). One end of the lifeline had a loop knot which is connected
directly via carabiner to the anchor strap. The other end of the lifeline has a
slip knot which was also connected via carabiner to the anchor strap. The line
was fed through the worker’s harness and through the Fisk, which he used to
control his descent. When ready to descend, a worker would unhook the slip knot
to allow the line to move through the Fisk, providing the ability to lower to
the working elevation.
According
to Worker #2, as the victim was preparing to lower himself into position, he
unhooked the harness strap carabiner from the anchor strap instead of the slip
knot carabiner. Then when he sat into position, the weight pulled his lifeline
free from the anchor strap, and he fell backwards 60 feet to his death.
A
separate fall arrest system (e.g., a separate lifeline with rope grab) could
have prevented this incident. As per OSHA 29 CFR 1926.502(d), Fall protection systems criteria and
practices, personal fall arrest systems, employers are required
that, “…where vertical lifelines are used, each employee shall be attached to a
separate lifeline.”
|
Figure
1: Work site on tower. Note the anchor strap and work ropes at the 60 foot
elevation point where the deceased was working.
|
|
|
Figure
2: Lifeline: Controlled descent device or Fisk, along with slip knot and loop
knot at each end of the lifeline.
|
Recommendations/Discussion
Recommendation #1: Tower
workers should utilize a separate fall protection system when employing
vertical lifelines or controlled descent devices.
Discussion:
In
this incident, the controlled descent device (Fisk) was being used as fall
protection. Fisk descenders were developed by rock climbers for intermittent
rappelling, or episodes of free falling followed by brief periods of control.
This is not recommended for safe working conditions on a communications tower.
If a proper fall arrest system is appropriately rigged, a worker cannot fall
more than 6 feet before the system activates. Fisks are sometimes used because
they are easier to master than other descent tools. The preferred method of
descent device, however, is the rope grab or rope brake, which enable the
automatic repositioning of the connection to the separate fall protection
system. These devices lock onto a line under stress, are generally attached to
a static lifeline, and have either shock absorbers or the ability to stretch.
In this case, a Fisk was used in place of a rope grab because the rope grab was
considered by workers to be an encumbrance, and “where wind would blow, it
would hit us in the head.” If a manual descending system such as a Fisk is
used, a separate fall protection system must be in place. The OSHA Fall Protection Standard, 29 CFR
1926.502(d)10i, requires that, “…where vertical lifelines are used, each employee
shall be attached to a separate lifeline.” Proper fall arrest systems should
also conform to ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-2007, Safety
Requirements for Personal Fall Arrest Systems, Subsystems and Components,
which, “Establishes requirements for the performance, design, marking,
qualification, instruction, training, inspection, use, maintenance and removal
from service of connectors, full-body harnesses, lanyards, energy absorbers,
anchorage connectors, fall arresters, vertical lifelines and self-retracting
lanyards comprising personal fall arrest systems for users within the capacity
range of 130 to 310 lb (59 to 140 kg).”
Recommendation #2:
Communication tower employees should be trained on the proper use of tower
climbing and fall protection equipment.
Discussion: The OSHA Fall Protection Standard,
29 CFR 1926.503(a), requires that, “…a training program for each employee who
might be exposed to fall hazards must be provided.” The program trains
employees to recognize the hazards of falling and the procedures to be followed
in order to minimize these hazards. According to OSHA 1926, Subpart M, Appendix
C, section e (full reference in Appendix), this should include, “…proper
hook-up, anchoring and tie-off techniques, including the proper dee ring
(carabiner or other attachment point to use on the body belt and harness for
fall arrest).” Part of any training program should also include access to the
NIOSH Alert, Preventing
Injuries and Deaths from Falls during Construction and Maintenance of
Telecommunication Towers, which is available online at:
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2001-156/). This publication provides useful
information to both employers and employers, and includes five FACE fatality
narratives that all involve fatal falls during construction or maintenance of
communication towers.
Recommendation #3: A
safety and health plan based on a job hazard analysis should be developed by
the employer and followed for each communications tower where workers are
assigned tasks.
Discussion: Employers should
conduct a job hazard analysis, with the participation of employees, of all work
areas and job tasks. A job hazard analysis should begin by reviewing the work
activities for which the employee is responsible, and the equipment that is
needed. Each task is further examined for mechanical, electrical, chemical, or
any other hazard the worker may encounter. A source of information on
conducting a job hazard analysis is included in the Appendix.
Appendix
Recommended
Resources
It is extremely important that employers obtain accurate information on health,
safety, and applicable OSHA standards. NJ FACE recommends the following sources
of information which should help both employers and employees:
U.S.
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)
Federal OSHA will provide information on safety and health standards on
request. OSHA has four area offices in New Jersey that cover the following
counties:
Hunterdon,
Middlesex, Somerset, Union, and Warren counties
Telephone:
(732) 750-3270
Essex,
Hudson, Morris, and Sussex counties
Telephone: (973)
263-1003
Bergen
and Passaic counties
Telephone:
(201) 288-1700
Atlantic,
Burlington, Cape May, Camden, Cumberland, Gloucester, Mercer, Monmouth, Ocean,
and Salem counties
Telephone:
(856) 757-5181
New Jersey Public Employees Occupational Safety and Health
(PEOSH) Program
The PEOSH Act covers all NJ state, county, and municipal employees. Two state
departments administer the act; the NJ Department of Labor and Workforce
Development (NJDLWD), which investigates safety hazards, and the NJ Department
of Health and Senior Services (NJDHSS), which investigates health hazards.
PEOSH has information available that may also benefit private employers.
Telephone: (609) 984-0785
Web site:
http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/lsse/employer/peosh_consultation.html (Link updated 3/26/2013)
Telephone: (908) 272-7712.
Web site:
http://www.njsafety.org
Internet
Resources
Other useful internet sites for occupational safety and health information:
Reference
Job
Hazard Analysis.
US Department of Labor Publication # OSHA-3071, 1998 (revised). USDOL, OSHA
Publications, PO Box 37535, Washington DC 20013-7535.
29 CFR
Ch. XVII, Section 1926.502 (d)10i: Fall Protection systems criteria and
practices.
Appendix
C to Subpart M of Part 1926—Personal Fall Arrest Systems; Non-mandatory
guidelines for Complying with 1926.502(d).
ANSI/ASSE
Z359.1-2007: Safety Requirements for Personal Fall Arrest Systems, Subsystems
and Components
New
Jersey FACE Program
Fatality
Assessment and Control Evaluation (FACE) Project
Investigation #08-NJ-003
Staff
members of the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services,
Occupational Health Service, perform FACE investigations when there is a report
of a targeted work-related fatal injury. The goal of FACE is to prevent fatal
work injuries by studying the work environment, the worker, the task and tools
the worker was using, the energy exchange resulting in the fatal injury, and
the role of management in controlling how these factors interact. FACE gathers
information from multiple sources that may include interviews of employers,
workers, and other investigators; examination of the fatality site and related
equipment; and reviewing OSHA, police, and medical examiner reports, employer
safety procedures, and training plans. The FACE program does not determine
fault or place blame on employers or individual workers. Findings are
summarized in narrative investigation reports that include recommendations for
preventing similar events. All names and other identifiers are removed from
FACE reports and other data to protect the confidentiality of those who
participate in the program.
NIOSH-funded
state-based FACE Programs include: California, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts,
Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington. Please visit the NJ
FACE website at www.state.nj.us/health/eoh/survweb/face.htm
or the CDC/NIOSH FACE website
at www.cdc.gov/niosh/face
for more information.
The NJ
FACE Project is supported by Cooperative Agreement #1 U60 OH0345-01 from the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The contents of this report
are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent
the official views of the CDC.
Tower
Construction Worker Dies Following 40-Foot Fall From Cellular Tower in Missouri
MO
FACE Investigation #99MO138
Date: May 22, 2001
SUMMARY
On November 26, 1999,
a 38-year-old tower construction worker fell approximately 40 feet from a
cellular tower. The victim and co-workers were in the process of constructing a
180-foot monopole tower. The victim was working outside of the tower at the
40-foot level where he was bolting together two tower sections. The tower
design allowed the workers to reach through access ports from the outside,
place the bolt through the section flange and tighten the nut to
specifications. There were several bolts that could not be reached from the
outside of the tower. The co-worker climbed down to the ground and climbed up
the inside of the tower. The co-worker then could slide the bolt through the
flange and the victim could tighten the nut to specifications. At the time of
the incident the victim was wearing a saddle style-positioning belt. Attached
to his positioning D-rings was a spreader bar, with a large hook. Apparently,
the victim unhooked from the tower and was moving to the next bolt location
when he fell. The victim was taken by ambulance to a local hospital and then
life-flighted to a trauma center where he died the morning of November 27,
1999.
The
MO FACE investigator concluded that in order to prevent similar occurrences all
employers should:
- provide
employees with a 100% fall protection system compatible with the work
being performed, instruct employees in the proper use of the system and
equipment, and ensure their use;
- employers
should ensure that proper personal protective equipment is available and
instruct workers in the proper use and limitations of the system, and
ensure its use;
- develop,
implement, and enforce a comprehensive written safety program which
includes a commitment to 100% tie off and written procedures to implement
100% fall protection
Additionally,
manufactures of tower components and tower owners should:
- consider
installing fall-protection fixtures on tower components during fabrication
or erection that would facilitate the use of fall protection.
INTRODUCTION
The
MO FACE investigator was notified of an occupational fatality at a tower
construction site in Missouri at approximately 11:00 a.m., November 27, 1999,
by the county sheriff's office. The investigator responded to the incident site
on Monday November 29, 1999. Upon arrival the investigator found that the company
had returned home to be with their families and the family of the victim.
Employees of the cellular service company who owned tower were present and were
also there at the time of the incident. The company returned to the site on
Thursday, December 2, 1999. On-site at this time were the company owners, the
president of the tower manufacturing company and a compliance officer for the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
The
employer is a tower erection company who has been in business for approximately
five years and, at the time of the incident, employed one employee. The company
did not have written safety rules and procedures in place for the tasks
performed by the workers. According to the employer, the victim was experienced
in tower construction and had received training that specifically addressed the
hazards associated with the fatality. The victim was a temporary employee for
this company, employed just for the construction of this tower. This was his
second day on this job and was the first fatality the company had experienced.
INVESTIGATION
The
tower construction company contracted with the cellular service company to
erect a 180-foot monopole cellular telephone tower. The company had been
on-site for three days when the incident occurred. The victim had arrived at
the site working for his regular employer three days before the incident. His
regular job was to deliver and install the prefabricated electronics building
which was located next to the base of the tower. The victim had prearranged
with the tower contractor to stay on-site after he had completed the
installation of the electronics building and work for them in the construction
of the tower.
On
the day of the incident the workers began setting tower sections with the assistance
of a crane service company. They had set and bolted the 20-foot base section to
the concrete foundation and slab. Section two had been set and bolted to the
base section. The tower had been completed to the height of 40-feet. The next
20-foot section was set in place by the crane. The victim and one co-worker
were on the tower at the 40-foot height. They were bolting the flanges of the
two sections together using a total of 48 bolts. Most of the bolts and
corresponding nuts could be placed by reaching through access ports, placing
the bolt up through the flange and tightening the nut down from the outside.
There were several bolts that could not be reached from the outside and the
co-worker climbed down from the outside of the tower and climbed up the inside
to the 40-foot level. From inside the tower the co-worker could place the bolts
up through the flange and victim could tighten the on the bolt. As the victim
was repositioning himself on the tower he unhooked his positioning belt. At
this time he lost his grip and fell 40-feet. The workers onsite immediately
came to the victim's aid. A worker with the cellular company called 911 from
their cell phone and helped direct the ambulance to the site. The victim was
taken by ambulance to a local hospital then life-flighted to a trauma center
where he did not survive the injuries and died the next morning.
CAUSE
OF DEATH
Severe
Brain Injury, Multiple Trauma.
RECOMMENDATIONS/DISCUSSION
Recommendation
#1: Employers should provide employees with a 100% fall protection system
compatible with the work being performed, instruct employees in the proper use
of the system and equipment, and ensure their use.
Discussion:
In this incident, the employee was using a positioning safety belt sometimes
described as a tree-trimmers belt, but no other fall-protection system was in
place to protect him as he moved on the tower. OSHA Compliance Directive, CPL
2-1.29 - Interim Inspection Procedures During Communication Tower Construction
Activities describes measures to be taken during the construction of
telecommunication towers:
When
climbing the tower during construction activities, employees must be protected
from falls using a fall arrest system meeting the criteria of 29CFR1926.502 or
a ladder assist safety device meeting the requirements of 29CFR1926.1053(a).
These are acceptable methods of accessing tower workstations regardless of
height. All employees climbing or otherwise accessing towers must be trained in
the recognition and avoidance of fall hazards and in the use of the fall
protection systems to be used, pursuant to 1926.21 or where applicable,
1926.1060.
Some
industry representatives have joined with OSHA in recommending that each
employee six feet or more above a lower level should be protected from falling
by a guardrail system, safety net system, ladder safety device, fall arrest
system or positioning device system. However, current OSHA standards only
require fall protection at heights of more than 25 feet.
Fall-protection
is defined as follows: Employees at risk of falling from work levels more than
six feet above the ground or working surface should be protected by some
conventional means of fall protection, which may include an integral
fall-arrest system. This applies to ascending, descending, moving point-to-point,
or any other tower construction or alteration-work activity conducted at an
elevated workplace. Employers should also require a minimum of three-point
contact (two hands and one foot or two feet and one hand) at all times when
employees are moving on the tower.
Fall
protection for tower work is more easily provided when the employee is
stationary and can tie-off at one location on the structure. When employees are
required to move about on the tower, other means of fall protection are
recommended, which can include, but are not limited to, a Y-style lanyard with
connectors at each end that:
- can
attach to anchorage points incorporated into the design of the tower;
- are
large enough to completely encircle tower members to which they are to be attached
(these large connectors may require a special order from a fall-protection
equipment manufacturer as the throat opening must be large enough to
encircle the member); or
- a
Y-style lanyard made of reinforced fabric. The reinforced lanyards can be
looped around the tower member and attached back to themselves.
These
lanyards attach to the D-ring at the center back (dorsal position) of the
employee's full-body harness. A fall-arrestor should also be incorporated into
the lanyard. Using this system allows the worker to move about the structured alternating
the use of each leg of the Y lanyard providing 100 percent fall protection.
This may be the most feasible method for fall protection when moving
horizontally on the tower.
When
there is an anchor point above the worker's head a properly installed and used
retractable lifeline or retractable lanyard may be considered. These fall
limiting devices are a preferred method of fall protection due to they engage
almost immediately minimizing the fall distance and significantly reducing the
impact on the worker. Other means of providing vertical fall protection is
incorporating lifeline and rope-grab system. Lifelines can be attached to the
tower sections on the ground before they are raised into position. After the
higher tower section is set and bolted in place and the worker is securely
attached to the tower with his positioning lanyards he can easily switch the
rope grab from the lower lifeline and upper lifeline and then continue to
ascend vertically. These lifelines need to remain in place for descending tower
as well.
The first person
going up the tower is at greatest risk if there has been no vertical lifeline
established. To ensure 100 percent fall protection during the initial ascent,
an anchor hook can be used to establish temporary anchor points. The anchor
hook is attached to a telescoping pole to which a lifeline or retractable
lanyard is attached. The retractable lanyard extends between the D-ring in the
middle of the harness back and the anchor hook. If a lifeline is used, a rope
grab travels on the rope and is attached to the center D-ring on the harness
back. The other end attaches to the anchor hook. When the employee moves the
hook, he must always be attached to the structure using his positioning system.
Once he reaches the top of the structure he secures the lifeline to an anchor
point and can then use the lifeline and rope grab for future climbs. Tie-off
adapters should be issued to each employee to allow them to establish an
anchorage on the tower.
Once
the tower is fully constructed a permanent system should be in place to protect
the worker while climbing the tower using permanently installed climbing pegs
or ladder. One such system includes the use of a safety-climb device/system.
This system incorporates a metal cable stretched the entire length of the tower
and equipped with a cable-grab device. The worker attaches the front (sternal)
D-ring on his harness to the cable-grab using a connector or short lanyard. The cable grab ascends
with the worker. If the worker slips or falls from the climbing pegs or ladder
the cable grab immediately engages limiting the fall distance.
For
more information regarding these and other available methods to achieve 100%
fall protection, employers should consult with safety professionals and
fall-protection-equipment sales representatives to learn more about systems
available that meet their particular needs. Employers should keep in mind that
when there are no specific OSHA regulations governing the safety of workers
performing these tasks, and the OSHA general duty clause (Public Law 91-596,
Section 5 (a) (1)) may apply.
Recommendation
#2: Employers should ensure that required personal protective equipment is
available and instruct workers in the proper use and limitations of the system,
and ensure its use.
Discussion:
In this incident, the employee was not equipped with proper personal protective
equipment. The system the victim was using to tie off to the tower was a
tree-trimmers belt. The belt consisted of a safety belt with two positioning
D-Rings and a sling across the back to which the worker would place across his
buttocks and sit into. This did not provide sufficient protection from falls
and does not comply with OSHA Compliance Directive CPL2-129 and
29CFR1926.502(d), which requires the use of a full body harness as a personal
fall arrest system.1, 2
Recommendation
#3: Employers should develop, implement, and enforce a comprehensive written
safety program which includes a commitment to 100% tie off and written
procedures to implement 100% fall protection.
Discussion:
The evaluation of tasks to be performed at the work-site forms the basis for
development, implementation, and enforcement of a safety program. Key elements
of such a program should include, at minimum, frequent and regular inspection
of the work-site and should include provisions for training employees in hazard
identification, avoidance and abatement. The comprehensive safety program
should include a clear statement indicating the employer's commitment to providing
100% fall protection, to preventing worker death and minimizing injury due to
falls, and a commitment to meeting OSHA safety requirements, including the
general-duty requirements. The fall protection plan should include, but may not
be limited to:
- identification
of work-site activities that require fall protection;
- any
methods to be used to eliminate the fall hazard;
- all
protective systems and PPE to be used for worker protection;
- training
for workers;
- minimum
standards for protection systems and their use;
- ongoing
evaluation to correct any deficiencies in the system or in the use of the
system by workers,
- a
plan for worker involvement in identifying fall hazards;
- a
plan for systematic review of the plan.
Recommendation
#4: Manufacturers of tower components and tower owners should consider
installing fall-protection fixtures on tower components during fabrication or
erection that would facilitate the use of fall protection.
There
are fall protection fixtures that can be engineered into the tower design and
added during component fabrication or erection that would facilitate the use of
fall protection systems. For example, the installation of safety-climb
devices/systems on all tower legs, the installation of permanent horizontal and
vertical lifelines, and the installation of anchorage points. These and other
methods should be researched and evaluated keeping in mind that employees will
need to perform work on existing towers whenever services are to be changed or
maintained.
The
manufacturer of this tower did incorporate fall protection into the tower
design. Anchorage points were welded onto the outside and the inside at all
strategic points where workers would be located during tower construction.
REFERENCES
- OSHA Compliance Directive, CPL
2-1.29 - Interim Inspection Procedures During Communication Tower
Construction [1999]. United States Department of Labor, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, Washington, D.C.
- Code of Federal Regulations 29 CFR
1926.502, U.S. Government Printing Office, Office of the Federal Register,
Washington, DC.
The
Missouri Department of Health, in co-operation with the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), is conducting a research project on
work-related fatalities in Missouri. The goal of this project, known as the
Missouri Occupational Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation Program (MO
FACE) is to show a measurable reduction in traumatic occupational fatalities in
the state of Missouri. This goal is being met by identifying causal and risk
factors that contribute to work-related fatalities. Identifying these factors
will enable more effective intervention strategies to be developed and
implemented by employers and employees. This project does not determine fault
or legal liability associated with a fatal incident or with current
regulations. All MO FACE data will be reported to NIOSH for trend analysis on a
national basis. This will help NIOSH provide employers with effective
recommendations for injury prevention. All personal and company identifiers are
removed from all reports sent to NIOSH to protect the confidentiality of those
who voluntarily participate with the program.
Three Tower Painters Die After
Falling 1,200 Feet When Riding the Hoist Line - North Carolina
NIOSH
In-house FACE Report 2000-07
SUMMARY
A
40-year-old tower-painting-company owner, his 16-year-old stepson, and a
19-year-old employee died after falling 1,200 feet when the hoist line on a
portable capstan hoist used to raise them up the side of a 1,500-foot-high
radio tower began slipping around the capstan, causing the hoist operator to
lose control of the hoist line. The company had been at the site for 2 weeks to
repair the beacon light at the top of the tower, paint the tower, and install
rest platforms on the tower. On the day of the incident, the owner was going to
work on the beacon light at the top of the tower while the two other workers
were going to continue painting the tower. A 3,000-foot length of ¾-inch nylon
rope and a 1,000- pound-capacity portable electric capstan hoist was used to
raise the male workers up the outside of the tower. Three loops, which the
workers utilized to assist them in riding the hoist line, were tied into the
hoist line approximately 6 feet apart. The stepson was first on the line, then
the 19-year-old, then the company owner. Using a length of woven rope, the male
workers had attached one of the rest platforms to the end of the nylon rope 62
inches below the last loop. The company owner's wife was operating the capstan
hoist using a foot pedal located on the ground. As the wife was operating the
hoist and hoisting the men up the side of the tower, the hoist line began to
slip around the capstan. The wife tried to hold the rope, but could not and the
men fell to the ground. The wife went to the tower's service building and
called the radio station that owned the tower, who in turn told her to call
911. The owner of the company that maintained the county equipment attached to
the tower was in his truck and heard via radio that the county emergency
medical service had been dispatched to the scene. He proceeded to the scene and
was the first responder to arrive. The county fire rescue squad arrived next,
then the county emergency medical service. Due to the extent of the victims'
injuries, no first aid was initiated. After the county sheriff's personnel
secured the scene, the victims were taken to the local hospital, where they
were officially pronounced dead.
NIOSH
investigators concluded that to help prevent similar incidents, employers
should:
- ensure
that hoisting equipment used to lift personnel is designed to prevent
uncontrolled descent and is properly rated for the intended use
- comply
with OSHA Compliance Directive CPL 2-1.29 "Interim Inspection
Procedures During Communication Tower Construction Activities" during
maintenance and construction activities on towers
- ensure
that workers inspect equipment on a daily basis to identify any damage or
deficiencies
- ensure
that required personal protective equipment is available and properly used
- know
and comply with child labor laws which include prohibitions against work
by youth less than 18 years of age in occupations which are declared by
the Secretary of Labor to be particularly hazardous (Hazardous Orders).
Additionally:
Tower owners should ensure that workers adhere to OSHA Compliance Directive CPL
2-1.29 while performing maintenance or construction activities on their towers.
Introduction
On
December 3, 1999, a 40-year-old tower-painting-company owner, his 16-year-old
stepson, and a 19-year-old employee died after falling 1,200 feet when the
hoist line on a portable capstan hoist used to raise them up the side of a
1,500-foot-high radio tower began slipping around the capstan, causing the hoist
operator to lose control of the hoist line. On December 7, 1999, officials of
the North Carolina Occupational Safety and Health Administration (NCOSHA)
notified the Division of Safety Research of this multiple fatality. On December
21 through 23, 1999, a DSR occupational health and safety specialist conducted
an investigation of the incident. The incident was reviewed with the NCOSHA
compliance officers assigned to the case, the tower owner's engineering
services representative, the owner of the company that maintained the county's
hardware on the tower, the owner of the company that installed the new coaxial
cable, the county coroner, and the county sheriff's office. The site was
photographed and photographs and video footage taken immediately after the
incident were reviewed. The county coroner and sheriff's reports were reviewed
during the investigation, as well as site drawings and sheriff's department
photographs taken immediately after the incident. An engineer and the manager
of the proprietary properties department for the hoist manufacturer were
consulted on questions pertaining to the operation of the hoist, and
manufacturer's literature and catalogues pertaining to the hoist were reviewed.
Correspondence prepared by a manufacturer's engineer to answer the NIOSH
investigator's questions was provided by the manager of proprietary properties.
The
company was a family-owned tower painting and maintenance service. The owner's
brother stated during OSHA interviews that the owner had over 20 years experience
painting and performing maintenance on towers. At the time of the incident the
company owner had three employees - his wife, his 16-year-old stepson, and a
19-year-old male employee. The company had no written safety policy or safety
program. Any training was performed on the job. Although the owner's wife
stated that she, her son and their employee had worked with her husband on
numerous occasions, the amount of tower-related work experience could not be
determined at the time of the investigation.
Investigation
The
company had been contacted by a radio station to install a new coaxial cable
for the radio broadcast antenna on the station's 1,500-foot-high, three-sided
telecommunication tower, and to replace the beacon light at the top of the
tower's antenna. After the cable installation was complete, the company was to
paint the tower and install rest platforms at designated intervals up the
tower. The company owner, his 16-year-old stepson, and a 19-year-old male
employee were performing the work.
The
owner had recently purchased six, 500-foot lengths of ¾-inch diameter nylon
rope that he spliced together to use as the hoist rope on this job. He had also
rented an 8,000-pound capacity powered cable puller to raise the coaxial cable
up the tower. After setting up the cable puller and replacing the beacon light
at the top of the antenna, the male workers attached the coaxial cable to the
hoist line and began raising the cable up the inside of the tower structure.
The cable had been raised approximately 300 feet when the director of
engineering services for the radio station arrived at the site and instructed
the owner to lower the cable back down the tower. It was determined that the
company did not have sufficient equipment or manpower to install the cable but
would still paint the tower and install the rest platforms. A second contractor
was then contracted to install the coaxial cable.
When the
cable had been installed by the second contractor, the company began to paint
the tower. The owner attached a portable electric capstan hoist to the tower
approximately 6 feet above ground level (Figure
1). An extension cord was plugged into a 115-volt outlet in the
tower's adjacent service building to power the hoist. Power to the hoist was
controlled by a foot switch that was activated by stepping on the switch. The
portable electric capstan hoist had a lifting capacity of 1,000 pounds and was
not manufactured or rated for lifting people.
For safe
operation and positive control of the load being lifted the capstan is designed
to turn in only one direction. The proper method of wrapping the hoist rope
around the capstan will place the "load wrap" (the end of the rope attached
to the load) on the inboard end of the capstan where the diameter is the
smallest (Figure
2).1
This allows the rope to feed smoothly over the capstan without jumping or
changing position. The number of rope wraps around the capstan is determined by
many variables including the load to be lifted. The final determination is made
by "feel." "Feel" is defined by the manufacturer as the
amount of force required to keep the rope just tight enough around the capstan
to raise or lower a load. With the proper number of wraps, an approximate
20-pound pull should raise or lower a load. Adding wraps of rope around the
capstan decreases the amount of pull required to control the load. Removing
wraps increases the amount of pull required.1
|
|
Figure 2. Proper method for
wrapping the hoist rope
around the capstan for
optimum rope action
|
The
workers painted for several days and used the hoist line to assist them in
climbing inside the tower. To prevent the rest platforms from striking the
tower while being raised, the owner climbed the tower and rigged the hoist line
so that the load line would be on the outside of the tower structure on
Thursday, December 2, 1999. The owner had been notified earlier that day by the
radio station that owned the tower that the beacon light at the top of the
tower was again not working.
The
three workers arrived at the site the following morning, along with the owner's
wife. It was decided that the two younger workers would continue painting while
the owner worked on the malfunctioning beacon light and installed one of the
rest platforms. The male workers intended to ride the hoist line to their work
stations. The two painters would be raised to approximately the 1,200-foot
level where they would step onto the tower, while the owner would ride the line
to the top of the tower.
The male
workers tied one end of a length of ½ inch woven rope to one of the rest
platforms, then tied the other end to the end of the hoist's load line. The
rest platforms were approximately 2½- feet square and weighed approximately 175
pounds. Three loops were tied into the hoist load line approximately 60 inches
apart to assist the workers in riding the line. The three workers then used a
stepladder to climb to the first crossbar on the tower, and the wife was
instructed to begin raising the hoist line and rest platform. Evidence suggests
that as the loops reached the workers, the workers stepped into them. The
owner's stepson was first on the line, then the 19-year-old employee, then the
owner. As the male workers were raised, the owner's wife kept pressure on the
hoist line by pulling the rope (fall line) from the capstan hoist, allowing it
to fall to the ground.
The male
workers were raised without incident until they reached approximately the
1,200-foot level. At that time, the rope began to slip around the capstan and
the wife lost control of the hoist line. She tried to hold the line but could
not. She looked up to see the three male workers falling. They fell to the
ground, landing approximately 60 feet from the tower (Figure
3). The wife ran to the tower's service building and called the
radio station that owned the tower. The station personnel instructed her to
call 911, which she did. The owner of the company that serviced the county's
hardware on the same tower heard the Emergency Medical Service (EMS) dispatched
to the tower over the radio in his truck and proceeded to the tower. The fire
rescue squad and EMS were next on the scene and checked the victims for vital
signs, but found none. The owner's wife was transported to the hospital where
she was treated for shock and rope burns to her hands. When the scene had been
secured by sheriff's department personnel, the victims were transported to the
hospital where they were officially pronounced dead.
|
|
Figure 3. Overhead view of
the incident site
|
As
previously mentioned, the hoist was not rated for lifting personnel. It is also
possible that the hoist was being used in an overload condition. The weights of
the 3 victims, as obtained from the county coroner were 190, 200, and 210
pounds. The weight of the rest platform was 175 pounds. The hoist
manufacturer's braided rope, similar to that used in this incident, weighs 14
pounds per 100 feet in length.2
The weight of at least 2,000 feet of rope was against the hoist at the
beginning of the lift. This would have added an additional weight of 280 pounds
(2,000 X .14lb/ft =280 lb). The total of these weights would be 1,055 pounds.
An additional load on the hoist would have been the friction added by the
pulley at the top of the tower. A manufacturer's engineer stated that it is
usual to add a minimum of 10% (105 lbs) additional load for this friction. It
is possible that the capstan could have seen a total load of 1160 pounds,
exceeding its 1,000 pound capacity.2
It could
not be determined why the rope began to slip around the capstan. The fact that
it slipped indicates that not enough force was being applied to keep the rope
tight around the capstan. The owner's wife stated that she had operated the
hoist a few times in the past but never with men on the line. She also said she
thought the capstan was full of rope wraps. The hoist manufacturer's literature
indicated that, under tension, 8 complete wraps of ¾-inch braided rope could be
placed on the hoist drum and would completely fill the drum.2
As a general rule, 3 or 4 wraps would allow an operator to lift the rated load
of 1,000 pounds with 20 to 40 pounds of pull on the fall line. Figure
4 contains the manufacturer's chart used to calculate the required
fall line pull for a load with 1 to 5 wraps of rope on the hoist drum.3
Following the line to the right of the number 4 (number of wraps located on the
left side of the chart) to the intersection of the curve, then down to the
bottom shows that 4 wraps yield an approximate 44:1 mechanical advantage. In
this case, a 44:1 advantage is 1,160 lb/44 = 26.26 pounds of pull required on
the fall line to lift the load. Using the same procedure, it can be seen that 5
wraps yield an approximate 115:1 mechanical advantage. In this case, a 115:1
advantage is 1,160 lb/115 = 10.08 pounds of pull required on the fall line. If
the hoist drum was full of 8 rope wraps, the pull required would be less.
|
|
Figure 4. Mechanical
Advantage of Series 90 Hoists
|
The
¾-inch nylon rope used was the maximum diameter suggested by the manufacturer
for use on the portable capstan hoist. As previously mentioned, the six
500-foot sections of rope were spliced together. The diameter of one of the
spliced areas was approximately 1 3/8 inch. It is not known if the difference
in diameter of the rope wraps on the capstan could have been a factor in the
incident. Correspondence with one of the hoist manufacturer's engineers
indicates that most splices, although larger in diameter than the rope, will
move across the capstan smoothly. However, unusually large splices may tend to
"over wrap" the rope already on the capstan. This "over
wrapping" would require the hoist operator to momentarily reduce the pull
on the fall line rope to allow the splice to seat on the capstan.2
Cause of
Death
The
county coroner listed the cause of death for all three workers as massive
trauma.
Recommendations
and Discussion
Recommendation #1:
Employers should ensure that hoisting equipment used to lift personnel is
designed to prevent uncontrolled descent and is properly rated for the intended
use.
Discussion:
The hoist used in this incident was not rated for the transport of personnel,
and warning labels on the hoist stated that the hoist was not intended for use
in the lifting or moving of persons. Equipment should only be used as rated by
the manufacturer. OSHA Compliance Directive CPL 2-1.29, Interim Inspection
Procedures During Communication Tower Construction Activities, requires that
hoists used to lift personnel must be designed to use power lowering;4
the hoist in this incident was not. Additionally, CPL 2-1.29 requires that
hoists used to lift personnel be equipped with a primary brake connected
directly to the drive train of the hoisting machine and a secondary automatic
emergency-type brake that, if actuated, would be able to hold the rated load
within a vertical distance of 24 inches.4
The hoist involved in this incident was not equipped with a braking system.
Recommendation #2:
Employers should comply with OSHA Compliance Directive CPL 2-1.29 during
maintenance and construction activities on telecommunication towers.
Discussion:
OSHA Compliance Directive CPL 2-1.29 describes measures to be taken during the
construction of telecommunication towers.4
To ensure the safety of workers, these measures should also be applied to
maintenance activities. The directive outlines measures including, but not
limited to, access of towers using hoists, requirements for hoists, 100% fall
protection, the training of hoist operators, and the inspection of equipment
components. The Compliance Directive outlines the proper methods for riding the
line and transitioning from the hoist line to the tower. Had these measures
been followed in this incident, these fatalities may have been prevented.
Recommendation #3: Employers should ensure that required personal protective
equipment is available and properly used.
Discussion:
OSHA Compliance Directive CPL 2-1.29 and 29 CFR 1926.502(d) require the use of
a body harness as a personal fall arrest system.4,
5
In this instance, two of the victims were wearing body harnesses but the leg
straps were not fastened. The owner was wearing only a safety belt. Personal protective
equipment (PPE) was not a factor in this incident; however, to provide the
safest possible work environment, employers should ensure that the proper PPE
is available and utilized in the correct manner.
Recommendation #4: Employers should ensure that workers inspect equipment on a
daily basis to identify any damage or deficiencies.
Discussion:
All equipment shall be visually inspected by a qualified person,A
as defined by the OSHA Compliance Directive CPL 2-1.29, on a daily basis before
work begins.4
In this instance the lanyards used by the workers were worn and frayed and the
hoist rope was spliced in several places and was very worn and abraded, with
several areas repaired with plastic tape. Both the workers' lanyards and the
hoist rope should have been removed from service. Although the condition of
this equipment was not a factor in this incident, equipment should be inspected
on a daily basis to identify damaged or deficient equipment. Once this
equipment is identified, it should be removed from service, thus eliminating
the exposure of workers to hazards.
Recommendation #5: Employers should know and comply with child labor laws which
include prohibitions against work by youths less than 18 years of age in
occupations which are declared by the Secretary of Labor to be particularly
hazardous (Hazardous Orders).
Discussion:
The Fair Labor Standards Act provides a minimum age of 18 years for work which
the Secretary of Labor declares to be particularly hazardous (Hazardous
Orders). One of the 17 Hazardous Orders prohibits minors from work in all
occupations involved in the operation of power-driven hoisting apparatus,
including riding on a manlift (Hazardous Order No. 7).6
The term "manlift" is defined as "a device intended for the
conveyance of persons which consists of platforms or brackets mounted on, or
attached to, an endless belt, cable, chain, or similar method of suspension;
such belt, cable, or chain operating in a substantially vertical direction and
being supported by and driven through pulleys, sheaves or sprockets at the top
and bottom."
Additionally: Tower owners should ensure that workers adhere to OSHA Compliance
Directive CPL 2-1.29 while performing maintenance or construction activities on
their towers.
Discussion:
The widespread use of wireless communication services has fueled the demand for
construction, and subsequent maintenance, of towers to hold transmitting
devices for radio and television broadcast antennas, personal communication
services and cellular phones. Recent NIOSH FACE investigations indicate that
many employers, supervisors, and workers may not be fully aware of the serious
fall hazards associated with tower work. Problems identified include, but are
not limited to, lack of employer safety programs, use of improper PPE, improper
use of PPE, lack of worker training, and improper use of hoists to transport
personnel up and down the tower. Because construction and maintenance
operations may be accomplished in brief time periods, it is virtually
impossible for OSHA to monitor the safety and health practices of the employers
involved. For this reason, tower owners should become familiar with OSHA
Compliance Directive CPL 2-1.29 which outlines safety measures to be taken
during tower construction.4
These measures should also be adopted for maintenance activities. The tower
owners should establish safety parameters as guided by CPL 2-1.29 to be
followed for each job and monitor the work being performed on their towers.
Tower owners may want to enlist the aid of professional engineers to establish
the safety parameters. Scheduled and unscheduled safety inspections should be
conducted at the tower sites by designated persons, which would demonstrate the
tower owners' commitment to safety and health and their desire to control the
risk of occupational injury.
A Qualified person:
One who, by possession of a recognized degree, certificate or professional
standing, or who by extensive knowledge, training or experience, has
successfully demonstrated the ability to solve or resolve problems relating tot
he subject matter, the work or the project.
References
Bulletin
20-9301CH, Chance tips of the trade-Capstan Hoists. Chance tips Vol. 53
No. 3, October 1992; and Vol. 54 No. 1, January 1993.
Hubbell
Power Systems - intra-company correspondence received by NIOSH from
Hubbell Power Systems Proprietary Properties Department.
Hubbell/Chance
- Centralia, Missouri. Catalogue Section 1150 - powered hoists.
CPL
2-1.29, Compliance Directive: Interim Inspection Procedures During
Communication Tower Construction Activities [1999]. United States
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Washington, D.C.
Code
of Federal Regulations 29 CFR 1926.502(d), 1999 edition. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Office of the Federal Register, Washington, D.C.
DOL
(1990). Child labor requirements in nonagricultural occupations under the
Fair Labor Standards Act. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor,
Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division, WH 1330.
Investigator
Information
This
incident was investigated by Virgil J. Casini, Safety and Occupational Health
Specialist, NIOSH, Division of Safety Research, Surveillance and Field
Investigations Branch. Mr. Casini is with the NIOSH Fatality Assessment and
Control Evaluation Program located in Morgantown, West Virginia.
