CONSTRUCTION CREW RESCUES 2 CO-WORKERS FROM RUBBLE FOLLOWING DEMOLITION COLLAPSE

MAY 5, 2015

ST. LOUIS, MO

A demolition crew in St. Louis escaped a collapse that occurred while they were working with only injuries, thanks to its own heroics.

According to a report from KSDK TV, the crew was in the process of demolishing two buildings Friday morning when the collapse occurred. Because the crew was asked to salvage the building’s bricks to be resold, two workers were on the building’s third floor, cleaning and stacking the bricks on pallets.

Suddenly, around 11:30 a.m., a portion of the building’s facade fell, sending one of the workers down into the basement. Soon after, truck operator Chuck Mace ran into the dust and rubble and immediately began working to unbury the workers.

Several other workers began assisting Mace despite fear that the building could suffer another collapse.

According to the station’s report, a building inspector said, “the pallets of bricks should not have been stacked above the large window openings, because they are not as sound as a solid wall would be.”

WORKER KILLED IN ATTEMPT TO JUMP FROM STALLED LIFT ON NYC JOBSITE

MAY 7, 2015

A worker on a crew building a luxury hotel in New York City was killed Tuesday when he fell 24 stories down an elevator shaft.

According to a report from the New York Daily News, 25-year-old Christian Ginesi and one other worker were attempting to install an elevator door frame at the Riu Hotel Times Square when their lift car stalled 5 feet above the landing of the 24th floor.

The paper reports that the two men decided to jump from the stalled car to the landing. The other worker made it safely, but when Ginesi attempted the jump, he lost his footing and fell down the shaft.

Rescue workers pulled him from the base of the shaft and rushed him to the hospital. He was pronounced dead about 45 minutes after the fall.

City officials issued a stop work order after the incident and, “slapped the elevator subcontractor, G-Tech Associates, with a Class 1 violation for failure to safeguard workers,” the paper reports.

Falls are the number one cause of death in the construction industry. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is encouraging contractors and construction firms to participate in the upcoming fall prevention safety stand-down May 4-15.

///-----/////

Worker dies after falling 24 stories down elevator shaft at NYC hotel under construction: police sources

Published: Tuesday, May 5, 2015

A construction worker fell 24 stories down an elevator shaft to his death Tuesday in a half-built Manhattan luxury hotel.

The doomed worker, identified by police sources as Christian Ginesi, and a colleague had been installing elevator door frames when the car they were riding in suddenly stalled five feet above the 24th floor landing.

Ginesi’s co-worker was able to jump safely to the landing, according to city Buildings Department report.

But when Ginesi tried, he lost his footing and toppled backward down the shaft, the report stated.

The worker who fell down an elevator shaft at the Riu Hotel Times Square construction site was pronounced dead at 1:26 p.m. at Bellevue Hospital.

Ginesi fell around 12:40 p.m. and was pulled by rescue workers from the base of the shaft in the unfinished building’s cellar about 20 minutes later, police said.

Witnesses said the 25-year-old Jersey City man was bleeding from the face as he was rushed to Bellevue Hospital, where police said he died at 1:26 p.m.

“That’s not good,” a shaken veteran construction worker said. “We were getting lunch. We try to be safe, but things happen.”

The city issued an immediate stop work order Tuesday at the hotel site and slapped the elevator subcontractor, G-Tech Associates, with a Class 1 violation for failure to safeguard workers.

Records show G-Tech is run by Dominick Glenn and his son, Brock, neither of whom could be reached for comment.

“They run a tight ship and they do good work,” said a Manhattan contractor who has worked with them before.

“They're nice guys,” added a construction manager who also declined to give his name. “It’s a father and son team, Brock and his father Dominick. I've had only good experiences with them.”

The accident happened at what will be the 600-room RIU-Hotel Times Square, a gleaming 29 to 31 story tower at 301 W. 46th St. near Eighth Ave.

The hotel is owned by the Spanish hospitality firm Riu Hotels & Resorts, based on the island of Mallorca, and was supposed to be built this summer.

This was not the first time a worker fell at the site.

In July 2013, the Buildings Department shut it down after answering a complaint about a worker falling three stories.

Inspectors found floor openings without the required railings and cited the owner for unsafe work conditions.

The DOB did not divulge how badly hurt the worker was.

Construction resumed a few days later. But in May 2014 and then again in September of that year, inspectors found more unsafe conditions — scaffolding without the proper support, and a worker without the proper safety training certification from OSHA.

The Rinaldi Group LLC, which is the general contractor, has since defaulted on answering two violations and paying $16,000 and fines, records show.

"They’re cooperating with authorities and their heart goes out to the family," Bradley Gerstman, an attorney for The Rinaldi Group, insisted.

IN THE WAKE OF A REFINERY EXPLOSION IN RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, CAL/OSHA HAS PROPOSED STRICT PROCESS SAFETY MEASURES AT OIL REFINERIES POSSIBLE NEW MODEL FOR PROCESS SAFETY

Recently, we offered tips on chemical reporting for hazardous waste facilities. Today, we will take a look at a possible new model for process safety management at refineries.

Every time a facility explodes, we look for ways it could have been prevented. Well, in the wake of a refinery explosion in Richmond, California, Cal/OSHA has proposed strict process safety measures at oil refineries. We are taking a look at Cal/OSHA’s proposal because it has been suggested that other states follow California’s lead.

The draft proposal, Process Safety Management for Oil Refineries (Refinery PSM), would apply only to refineries and would apply to “all processes, operations and substances at petroleum refineries that have the potential to cause serious physical harm or a major incident.” In addition to proposing changes to existing PSM language, the draft proposed Refinery PSM introduces new requirements in a number of areas. We’ll take a look at some of the new requirements.

Damage Mechanism Reviews (DMRs). New requirements for DMRs would include:

• That recommended actions addressing hazards that could cause death or serious physical harm be corrected immediately or through interim measures pending permanent measures.
• Employers would be required to document all DMR recommended actions that are delayed beyond the timelines and communicate the rationale and new timeline to employees.

Hierarchy of Hazard Control Analysis. Employers would be required to perform a Hierarchy of Hazard Control Analysis (HCA) for all process hazard analyses (PHA) recommended actions. All initial PHAs would have to be completed within 3 years. New requirements for HCAs would include:

• An initial HCA as a standalone analysis would have to be done for all existing processes within 3 years and updated every 5 years.
• An HCA would also be required in the analysis and implementation of corrective actions from PHAs and when certain changes are proposed as part of a Management of Change review.
• All recommended actions that are delayed would have to be documented and include a plan for communicating why they were delayed and the new timeline to employees.

Management of Change (MOC). The biggest change to MOC procedures would be the requirement that employees participate in all MOCs from the beginning of the MOC process through the implementation of the change. Which brings us to…

Employee Participation. One of the most significant changes to the PSM procedures in the proposed Refinery PSM is the emphasis on employee participation throughout the draft. Effective employee and employee representative participation would be required at the earliest possible point, throughout all phases of the development, training, implementation, and maintenance of the PSM elements. In addition, employers would be required to develop, implement, and maintain an effective Hazard Reporting Program that ensures, at a minimum, the right of all employees, including employees of contractors, to anonymously report hazards.

Human Factors. Employers would be required to take a much more proactive stance with regard to human factors in the PSM program. When addressing a task, they would now be required to account for staffing levels and the length of time needed to complete the task. They would also have to account for communication systems and the understandability and clarity of operating and maintenance procedures.

In addition, employers would be required to implement human factors controls on process equipment and appurtenances as determined by the PHA, safeguard protection analysis, or HCA, including but not limited to:

• Error-proof mechanisms;
• Automatic alerts; and
• Automatic system shutdowns for critical operational errors.

Safeguard Protection Analysis (SPA). Employers would be required to perform a written SPA for each process within 6 months of the relevant PHA. The SPA must be completed within 90 days and must assess the combined effectiveness of existing safeguards and safeguards recommended in a PHA and HCA and whether additional or alternative inherent safety measures or independent layers of protection may be needed.

Incident Investigations. The proposed Refinery PSM would significantly revise procedures for incident investigations. Employers would be required to investigate and report any incident that is major or potentially major. The definition of what constitutes a “major incident” would be greatly expanded to include not only releases but also events that cause community evacuation or shelter-in-place orders; and unplanned releases of nontoxic or nonflammable materials, such as steam or carbon dioxide; and certain events that trigger a pressure relief device to discharge to the atmosphere. Part of the incident investigation includes a requirement to perform a root cause analysis, which would include employees or their representatives as part of the investigation team.

Compliance Audits. Refineries would be required to conduct compliance audits every 3 years and certify that the facility is in compliance with all the provisions of the Refinery PSM.

Process Safety Culture Assessment (PSCA). Employers would be required to develop and implement a PSCA that encourages the reporting of safety concerns. The program would require the development of a written report and action plan every 3 years.

PSM Management System. Refineries would be required to develop a written PSM Management System and review it annually. As part of the PSM Management System, the refinery manager would be required to track and document all changes to the PSM Program.

Unsecured Packages Tops in Top 10 HazMat Violations

Don’t get caught short by a U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) roadside inspection. In its most recent data for fiscal year (FY) 2015, DOT’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) had performed 68,763 roadside inspections of trucks targeting compliance with hazardous materials transportation regulations. During these inspections, DOT inspectors found 14,860 violations.

The top violation DOT inspectors have found so far in FY 2015 is that packages are not secured in vehicles. At 1,207 violations, this mistake accounted for 8.12% of the total violations. Following at a close second, inspectors have found 1,197 instances when there was no copy of the U.S. DOT registration number in the vehicles. Four of the top 10 violations have to do with placarding requirements. In some cases, the placards were not there at all and, in some cases, the placards were damaged or obscured. Two of the top 10 violations are related to shipping papers.  For instance, did you realize that you cannot carry the shipping papers in a clipboard that has a metal cover unless you have clearly marked the clipboard to indicate that it contains the shipping papers? Here’s a look at the top 10 hazmat transportation violations by trucks uncovered by DOT inspectors so far in FY 2015.   Regulation Violation Description # of inspections # of violations % of total violations 1 49 CFR 177.834 Package not secure in vehicle 1,158 1,207 8.12% 2 49 CFR 107.620 No copy of US DOT hazardous materials registration number 1,195 1,197 8.06% 3 49 CFR 172.516 Placard damaged, deteriorated, or obscured 920 998 6.72% 4 49 CFR 177.817 No shipping papers (Carrier) 746 770 5.18% 5 49 CFR 172.504 Vehicle not placarded as required 732 770 5.18% 6 49 CFR 177.817 Shipping paper accessibility 759 761 5.12% 7 49 CFR 172.602 Emergency response information missing 606 606 4.08% 8 49 CFR 172.202 Failure to enter basic description of hazardous materials in proper sequence 587 604 4.06% 9 49 CFR 172.502 Failure to provide carrier- required placards 564 571 3.84% 10 49 CFR 177.823 No placards/markings when required 392 459 3.09%