Scaffolding problems lead to willful violation charges
January 1, 2000 5 minutes read
Scaffolding problems lead to willful violation charges
Federal safety officials have cited New England Brickmaster Windows and Exteriors of Tewks-bury, MA, for alleged willful and serious scaffolding safety violations at a job site in Winthrop, MA, and have proposed penalties totaling $150,800 for those alleged violations. The company and its predecessors have a long history of similar safety violations, according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Similar fall protection violations and a number of other problems were found at a school site elsewhere in the state.
The New England Brickmaster charges were not the first for the company, says Brenda Gordon, OSHA area director for Boston and Southeastern Massachusetts. She says the most recent alleged violations were discovered during an inspection of a job site on May 14, 1999.
"Typically, for this company, what our compliance officers found, was a litany of scaffolding safety hazards to which employees of this company seem to be regularly exposed," says Gordon. "Unfortunately, this firm and its predecessor company have a long history of similar safety violations, all having to do with unsafe scaffolds."
Gordon notes that New England Brickmaster Windows and Exteriors has been inspected four times previously by OSHA. In addition, the company is the offspring of a now defunct company with significant OSHA inspection history. New England Brickmaster, also of Tewksbury, was inspected by OSHA four times, with six serious and two repeat violations of the scaffold standards.
That company was dissolved in March 1992, and its assets were sold in an involuntary auction. New England Brickmaster Windows and Exteriors immediately re-opened with the employees and management from New England Brickmaster.
Scaffold appeared close to collapse
On May 14 at the Winthrop site, employees of the company were observed working at elevations of 13 feet and 20 feet above the ground while supported on a poorly constructed wood scaffold system. They were observed working without fall protection and without safe access on a scaffold that appeared structurally unsound and in danger of collapse.
Consequently, Gordon says, the company is being charged will the following alleged scaffolding safety violations:
• Four alleged willful violations, carrying total proposed penalties of $140,000, for:
— failing to ensure that a wooden scaffold system was erected in accordance with the design of a qualified person;
— failing to provide a safe means of access to each of the three working levels of a 20-foot high wood scaffold system;
— allowing employees to work at elevations up to 20 feet on scaffolding with damaged or weakened parts (scaffold planks and brackets not able to support their own weight and four times the maximum intended load);
— failing to ensure that a guardrail system was installed along all open sides and ends of platforms on a wooden scaffold system.
• Six alleged serious violations, including proposed penalties totaling $8,600, for:
— employees potentially exposed to dropped tools or materials not wearing protective headgear;
— employees exposed to falling nails not wearing protective eye wear;
— the 2 inch x 6 inch boards used as scaffold planks were placed so their ends extended up to 4 feet beyond the end supports;
— a competent person did not inspect the scaffold as required;
— toeboards and screens were not provided to protect workers from falling materials;
— employees were exposed to falls while standing unprotected on a second floor balcony railing.
Gordon notes that a health inspection was also conducted, which resulted in two alleged serious violations, carrying proposed penalties totaling $2,200, for: failing to develop a written respirator program for employees required to mix silica containing products and failing to assess employee exposure to respirable quartz and particulates; failing to develop and implement a written hazard communication program; and failing to conduct hazard communication training.
OSHA launched a special emphasis program in the past year aimed at reducing fatal fall hazards in New England. The program is designed to help employers and workers identify and eliminate fall hazards in construction, where falls are the leading cause of death, and in general industry, where fall hazards may not be as obvious. The program’s four major components combine outreach efforts, compliance assistance, an increased emphasis on identifying and addressing fall hazards during general industry inspections, and targeted inspections of workplaces where fall hazards are observed.
Nearly $70,000 in fines at school site
In a related case, OSHA cited Davis Sheet Metal, a New Bedford, MA, contractor performing roofing work at the William H. Taylor School, also in New Bedford, for alleged willful, repeat, and serious violations and has proposed penalties totaling $69,400.
Gordon says the alleged violations were discovered during an inspection conducted Oct. 7, 1999, at the Brock Road work site and encompass a cross-section of construction safety hazards, in particular, a lack of fall protection for employees working more than three stories above the ground. Davis Sheet Metal had 10 employees working on site at the time of the inspection.
"The inspection found employees working on the roof without any form of fall protection to prevent them from falling 35 feet to the parking lot below," she says. "Protection should have been supplied through the use of lifelines and safety belts and by erecting guardrails in hoisting areas at roof’s edge where employees received materials lifted onto the roof by a crane."
The crane and its rigging had not been inspected for defects, such as the damaged nylon sling that was used to lift materials to the roof, she says. This exposed employees to the hazard of the load failing and dropping on them.
Employees were also at risk of electric shock from ungrounded power tools, head injuries from failure to wear hard hats, and falls from inadequate or improperly used ladders. In addition, the workers had not been trained to recognize and address hazards such as these.
Gordon notes the considerable size of the fines proposed in this case reflect the classification of the fall protection citations as willful, the most severe category of OSHA citation, issued only when OSHA believes, based on the information gathered in its inspection, that the employer knew what safeguards were required to protect workers yet apparently elected to not provide them.
"This employer is no stranger to these worker safety requirements given its prior OSHA history and the fact that fall protection is a basic, well-known, and mandated safeguard for employees performing roofing work," Gordon says. "The fact that no falls occurred on this job site is fortunate, but that in no way absolves an employer of the responsibility of providing a safe workplace."
You have reached your article limit for the month. Subscribe now to access this article plus other member-only content.
- Award-winning Medical Content
- Latest Advances & Development in Medicine
- Unbiased Content