Introduction to Fall Protection PDF 5th Edition

Falls continue to be one of the most costly and deadly incidents in the workplace. They perennially rank at the top of OSHA violations. Falls lead OSHA’s “Fatal Four” for the construction industry, and slips, trips, and falls are in the top six causes of workplace injuries. While there have been man...

Falls continue to be one of the most costly and deadly incidents in the workplace. They perennially rank at the top of OSHA violations. Falls lead OSHA’s “Fatal Four” for the construction industry, and slips, trips, and falls are in the top six causes of workplace injuries. While there have been many advances in technology, policy, and procedures, there is still much work to be done to protect workers. J. NIGEL ELLIS ELLIS ABOUT THE AUTHOR J. NIGEL ELLIS, Ph.D., CSP, PE, CPE (Human Factors), has more than 45 years of safety engineering experience. He is the CEO and founder of Ellis Fall Safety Solutions. His lifelong mission and that of his businesses is focusing on the elimination and control of occupational fall hazards. Dr. Ellis has performed fall hazard assessments in hundreds of facilities and construction sites and has been retained as an expert witness in more than 1,000 fall-related cases nationwide. Dr. Ellis is a founding member of ANSI/ASSP Z359, the former chairperson of ANSI/ASSP Z359.2 committee, and is a contributor to other ANSI committees as well as various ASTM committees. Dr. Ellis is a fellow of the American Society of Safety Professionals (ASSP). He has been awarded the prestigious ASSP Thomas F. Bresnahan Standards Medal for voluntary standards excellence and the National Safety Council’s Distinguished Service to Safety Award. www.ASSP.org INTRODUCTION TO ▪ Case studies that demonstrate real-world situations ▪ An extensive example fall protection program ▪ A detailed glossary of terms FALL PROTECTION Included in this edition are: FIFTH EDITION INTRODUCTION TO FALL PROTECTION FIFTH EDITION Sold by ASSP to Jeremy Bokun on 01/26/2024, Order #1001977949 Single user only, copying and networking prohibited. This document is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or distributed to any other party This fifth edition of Introduction to Fall Protection brings the reader up to date with the best practices, latest standards and requirements, and innovative equipment for addressing falls in the workplace. Dr. Ellis addresses codes of practice; the hierarchy of controls; active fall protection systems; protection by worker activity; equipment selection, inspection, and maintenance; walking-working surfaces; ladders and aerial lifts, rescue and descent; and fall protection programs. FALL PROTECTION Fifth Edition J. Nigel Ellis Sold by ASSP to Jeremy Bokun on 01/26/2024, Order #1001977949 Single user only, copying and networking prohibited. This document is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or distributed to any other party Introduction to American Society of Safety Professionals, 520 N. Northwest Highway, Park Ridge, IL 60068 Copyright © 2021 by American Society of Safety Professionals All rights reserved. Published 2021 Limits of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book, and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. The information is provided with the understanding that the authors are not hereby engaged in rendering legal or other professional services. If legal advice or other professional assistance is required, the services of a qualified professional should be sought. Technical Editor: Cheryl Scanlon-Zinner, CSP Managing Editor: Rick Blanchette, ASSP Editing, text design, and composition: Cathy Lombardi Cover design: Janet Chen, ASSP Printed in the United States of America 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ISBN-13: 978-0-939874-36-1 (print) ISBN-13: 978-0-939874-37-8 (e-book) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Ellis, J. Nigel, 1942- author. Title: Introduction to fall protection / J. Nigel Ellis. Description: Fifth edition. | Park Ridge, IL : American Society of Safety Professionals, 2021. | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “The fifth edition of Introduction to Fall Protection brings the reader up to date with the best practices, latest standards and requirements, and innovative equipment for addressing falls in the workplace. The author addresses codes of practice; the hierarchy of controls; active fall protection systems; protection by worker activity; equipment selection, inspection, and maintenance; walking-working surfaces; ladders and aerial lifts, rescue and descent; and fall protection programs. The appendix features an example fall protection program”-Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2021015460 (print) | LCCN 2021015461 (ebook) | ISBN 9780939874361 (print) | ISBN 9780939874378 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Industrial safety--Standards--United States. | Industrial safety--Standards--Europe. | Falls (Accidents)--United States. | Falls (Accidents)--Europe. Classification: LCC T55.E35 2021 (print) | LCC T55 (ebook) | DDC 620.8/6--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021015460 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021015461 Sold by ASSP to Jeremy Bokun on 01/26/2024, Order #1001977949 Single user only, copying and networking prohibited. This document is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or distributed to any other party American Society of Safety Professionals, ASSP, and the ASSP shield are registered trademarks of the American Society of Safety Professionals. This document is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or distributed to any other party Contents Foreword Preface v vii Acknowledgments ix Chapter 1 The Importance of Fall Protection 1 Chapter 2 Fall Protection Codes of Practice 21 Chapter 3 Hierarchy of Controls 43 Chapter 4 Active Fall Protection Systems 69 Chapter 5 Fall Protection by Worker Activity 103 Chapter 6 Equipment Selection, Inspection, and Maintenance Chapter 7 Walking-Working Surfaces and Work Positioning Chapter 8 Ladders and Aerial Lifts Chapter 9 Rescue and Descent 189 233 Annex: Example Fall Protection Program Index 161 215 Chapter 10 Fall Protection Programs Glossary of Terms 137 259 291 301 iii Sold by ASSP to Jeremy Bokun on 01/26/2024, Order #1001977949 Single user only, copying and networking prohibited. Sold by ASSP to Jeremy Bokun on 01/26/2024, Order #1001977949 Single user only, copying and networking prohibited. This document is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or distributed to any other party This page intentionally left blank This document is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or distributed to any other party Foreword While everyone has been exposed to gravity since the day they were born and has experienced a fall of some kind, very few develop a childhood dream of becoming a fall protection practitioner. Individuals engaged in this industry come from a variety of backgrounds—recreational enthusiasts, those mechanically inclined, engineers, safety professionals, and scientists, to name a few. Welcome! You have found an industry where you can have a great effect on a person’s ability to make it home safely. Thankfully, many people—including this publication’s author and his collaborators—found the fall protection industry and apply their experience, technical excellence, and enthusiasm to minimize preventable injuries and deaths due to falls. My passion for fall protection was solidified on Memorial Day weekend 1998. The Friday before the holiday weekend, I received a phone call saying a horizontal lifeline I helped design saved a worker’s life at a construction site. The magnitude to which my work could impact a person, a family, and an organization hit home that day. Unfortunately, there are too many stories that don’t have happy endings. And, despite the growth in regulations, standards, equipment available to users, and OSHA citations to address fall risk, incidents still occur much too frequently and are increasing. These incidents occur for a variety of reasons, but I am convinced that through better processes, including education, training, and application of best practices, many tragic outcomes can be prevented. This book will start you down that path of working with others. While regulators and standards bodies around the world are becoming better at working together to educate individuals and organizations to minimize fall incidents, many people crave a technical supplement. Dr. Nigel Ellis has been helping to fill this void from the beginning—attending the first ANSI Z359 meeting in the mid-1980s, serving on the board of the International Society for Fall Protection, and training countless people who work at heights. When I first used the book, I received the clarity I craved, and it spurred me to discover what else was out there. For this fifth edition, Dr. Ellis has combined his decades of experience with the latest information in this ever-changing industry to provide a valuable technical resource. When fall protection issues are properly addressed, the result is increased safety and reduced risk. But it isn’t easy, and the work is never finished. To create an effective fall protection program, it is imperative to employ the expertise provided in this book. The result? Fewer improvised systems that rely on limited information and inherent risk. Said in a more proactive way: It is imperative to create redundancies such that a single mistake by a single worker won’t result in a fatality. By investing time with this book, you have taken a great step toward improving safety for workers at heights. Next, I encourage you to reflect on this content and perform a structured fall protection program gap analysis and develop a list of critical next steps to reduce risk. We may not be able to defy gravity itself, but we can defy its impact and allow workers to return home to their families unharmed. Can you think of a better way to leave a positive impact on this world? Thomas Kramer, P.E., CSP Managing Principal, LJB Inc. v Sold by ASSP to Jeremy Bokun on 01/26/2024, Order #1001977949 Single user only, copying and networking prohibited. Sold by ASSP to Jeremy Bokun on 01/26/2024, Order #1001977949 Single user only, copying and networking prohibited. This document is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or distributed to any other party This page intentionally left blank This document is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or distributed to any other party Preface The fall protection revolution continues! Maybe its driving force was passage of the OSHA harness rule in the USA on January 1, 1998, when harnesses became a requirement and body belts became illegal for fall arrest. It took only about a year for almost complete compliance—not only in construction but also in general industry and other industries. The word got around quickly that suspension in a belt was dangerous. Now we are concerned with overhead anchors and slack line systems. So why are the number and rates of fatal falls still steadily going up? I continue to think there are two main reasons. First, the proper structural anchorage point has not caught on widely yet (beyond the perfunctory issue of a harness and lanyard). Second, the users and managers of fall protection do not understand that these systems must be engineered into the workplace and also maintained with strong, effective programs that resemble FAA requirements for maintenance of commercial aircraft components. The roles of personnel in a fall protection program are of utmost importance. The program administrator recommended in The Fall Protection Code (ANSI/ASSP Z359.2) must help establish a stronger role for the qualified person and more training and discipline for the competent person role. The competent person must help prevent or repair damage that has been caused by others inadvertently and must deal with innocent misuse of equipment. As more sophisticated equipment is more widely used, the tendency is to avoid the critical observation of the actual manner of utilization to foresee and witness actual field fall hazards such as swing falls, cable-cutting hazards, rope degradation under acid conditions, edge hazards, corrosion of cable terminations, pawl sticking of self-retracting devices, ground or surface impacts, Y-lanyard deployment hazards, snaphook attachment hazards, and so on. In some cases, such as falling hazards from elevated work platforms, few can agree on the actual hazards that need to be controlled. In addition, advisory standards must begin to focus on incorporation of elements into the building codes to provide designers with a set of requirements so new buildings are not immediately in violation of OSHA requirements when the certificate of occupancy or equivalent is provided. Compatibility of components must remain a top interest for distributor selling and training. As we march down the road of progress with improved equipment and systems and standards, let us not forget even for a few milliseconds of duration in the field, such as during transitions, the importance of the skill of recognizing fall hazards that are potentially lethal and need forward preparation. Even the best harness with slack webbing adjustment controls and more convenient buckle tightening cannot make up for a poor application or excess fall distance exposure or nonattachment of straps. Fall protection without harnesses is on the horizon in 2021 and is getting closer for a wide variety of applications. Railings provide more safety at heights and must begin to be the default fall protection method whenever possible. Handholds that are horizontal, rather than just siderails, have been endorsed by OSHA in a 2019 interpretation for use with climbing extension ladders. Advanced training to stay on the intended protective side of a catwalk railing needs to be driven home. Earlier planning of anchor points for fall arrest systems helps take the guesswork out of fall protection. Engineering of fall protection has become accepted by larger firms, and today’s structural engineers are increasingly willing to participate in fall protection planning. Standards have been developed by the ANSI Z359 committee and are almost complete to include both general industry and construction. vii Sold by ASSP to Jeremy Bokun on 01/26/2024, Order #1001977949 Single user only, copying and networking prohibited. viii Introduction to Fall Protection Thank you for investing in this edition of Introduction to Fall Protection. Many changes have occurred since the previous edition of this book, most notably the removal of engineering material, which will be covered in a forthcoming companion book entitled Fall Protection Engineering for the Qualified Person. This book is intended to create a path for the proper consideration of fall hazard observation and documentation; discussion of multiple possible solutions, including hazard elimination; persuasion to adopt one or more solutions to cover more than one trade or situation; personal training for the exposed worker; and the treatment of fall protection, excepting the harness, as a structural engineering challenge. My hope for this edition of Introduction to Fall Protection is that students, as well as people involved in such diverse fields as occupational safety, engineering, facilities management, construction project management and supervision, human resources, and organization management, will have a resource that answers their questions and sparks their creative problem-solving skills. The goal is to save more lives from the results of the uncontrolled deadly forces of gravity and to grow toward perfecting the field we know as fall protection. J. Nigel Ellis, Ph.D., CSP, PE, CPE (Human Factors) Sold by ASSP to Jeremy Bokun on 01/26/2024, Order #1001977949 Single user only, copying and networking prohibited. This document is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or distributed to any other party The march toward optimum fall protection continues in 2021, led by larger organizations that see the wisdom in the investment. The willingness to train and retrain competent and authorized persons continues to grow. Interest in eliminating fall hazards, as called for in the hierarchy of fall protection, has become a more serious focus of engineers and safety professionals. But what about small contractors who lag in this area? I believe it is up to property, plant, and project owners; general contractors; and construction managers to lead the way. Owners should take responsibility for the fall protection installations, usage, and maintenance requirements of purchased equipment used by their employees, contractors, and even independent truckers. This document is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or distributed to any other party Acknowledgments Scores of unappreciated people have worked in the field of fall protection for decades. I wish to thank all of them. The pioneers in the science of fall protection date back to the 1930s when Clarence Rose produced the first window cleaner rope-grab lifeline system in Denver, Colorado. The federal government then tackled the safety of climbing ladder structures at field landing lights around the USA and at military bases worldwide through the use of a new notched tube anchorage system. The electric utilities developed belts, strap protection D-rings, and snaphooks. In the 1960s, Joe Helms worked to establish the A10.14 (later A10.32) standard for fall protection equipment used in construction. Retractable lifelines started gaining acceptance in the 1970s and horizontal lifelines in the 1980s. Other innovations continue to the present day. Anchor points overhead or under foot have been a focus of Dan Henn, of Reliance Fall Protection, who currently leads the Z359.14 committee. A special thank you for advancing fall protection as owners must go out to the entertainment companies, particularly to Kim Tum-Suden, Bob Whitfield, and the late Ken Young, P.E., who proactively saw the need to improve the fall protection program and systems for tens of thousands of American workers and undertook a massive effort that led to sweeping, positive changes that will have trickle-down effects for decades to come. Thank you Cheryl Scanlon-Zinner, CSP, who not only leads our training team at Ellis Fall Safety Solutions, but who has also undertaken the work of updating this book (and the previous edition as well). Cheryl’s safety generalist knowledge and approach is immensely helpful in separating the safety side of fall protection from the engineering aspects involved in this area. Thank you to John Whitty, P.E., for his continuous support as my alternate on the Z359 committee and for championing high-quality training and assessments and the integration of modern approaches into everyday fall protection engineering and design challenges. Our safety and engineering relationship spans 30 years. Jeff Strauss continues to build upon the skills acquired during his 30-year career at DuPont to coordinate the EFSS training, assessments, engineering, and installation programs in a way that provides immeasurable benefit to our clients and the profession. Randy Wingfield, whose hard work as chair of the ANSI Z359 committee resulted in the standardization of fall protection products and testing, has been succeeded by Thom Kramer, P.E., who continues to integrate the latest in science and engineering technology for continuous improvement. The ANSI Z359 series of standards illustrate the pinnacle of fall protection and represent the highest standard of care for elevated work in the United States. At EFSS, we have increasingly incorporated these standards into our programs, and in all the solutions we develop. They provide the basis for this textbook. Thank you to Don Bethman for illustrations that are intended to help clarify material in this book for the reader. Finally, my sincerest gratitude for the faithful efforts of Anna Pancoast and Andy Durney, who have coordinated and kept our office running smoothly over the years. ix Sold by ASSP to Jeremy Bokun on 01/26/2024, Order #1001977949 Single user only, copying and networking prohibited. Sold by ASSP to Jeremy Bokun on 01/26/2024, Order #1001977949 Single user only, copying and networking prohibited. This document is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or distributed to any other party This page intentionally left blank 1 This document is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or distributed to any other party CHAPTER The Importance of Fall Protection “It’s not whether you fall down. It’s whether you get back up.” —Vince Lombardi OBJECTIVES At the completion of this chapter, the reader will be able to: discuss statistics related to fall hazards explain the costs associated with unintentional falls in the United States distinguish the general categories of falls Introduction Falls have historically been, and continue to be, the leading cause of accidental workplace death on construction sites and in heavy industry (Figure 1.1). The forces that accumulate during a fall are astronomical, and upon impact, may be highly injurious unless a way is found to avert the fall or to sufficiently slow the body to a safe stop. The purpose of the fifth edition of Introduction to Fall Protection is to provide a reference for those whose job responsibilities require them to actively participate in the administration of fall protection programs, rules, and guidelines, and in the development of site-specific fall protection directives. It is also intended to assist the reader to develop the capability to identify and evaluate fall hazards and to choose effective methods that will address those hazards. Fall hazards are not always obvious. As an expert witness in front of a jury in the mid-1990s, I remember being asked to explain why forces on a vertical rope lifeline are Figure 1.1 Facsimile of the Hoover Dam Warning Sign, 1931—falls were a leading cause of death during this project 1 Sold by ASSP to Jeremy Bokun on 01/26/2024, Order #1001977949 Single user only, copying and networking prohibited. 2 Introduction to Fall Protection a new project. That means engineering solutions must be determined at the design and planning stages. Some companies continue to allow their workers to ac­ cept the risk of falling from structures. General contractors often delegate work to their subcontractors believing they have also delegated the responsibility for safety. Indus­ try frequently relies on general, informal training that consists of merely reading regulations to employees, showing a video, or having them sign an attendance sheet for a safety meeting; often, little relevant testing or observation is completed to ensure a workforce competent in identifying hazards and using safety systems assigned to them. Many government contracts for construction and repair (e.g., bridges) tend to place the entire safety responsibility on the general contractor (or its equivalent by contract). Safety measures are then practically unenforced, as subcontractors go about their business with hustle, cutting costs and time wherever they can, to meet deadlines that may carry a financial penalty. Owners easily overlook how proper architectural design and engineering, or construction sequence, can eliminate many serious fall hazards. What is often missing is the field of engineering planning, which some larger corporations implemented many years ago. There are notable exceptions to outdated practices, such as the enlightened approaches within empowered workforces, in firms that have made a safety breakthrough and can carve out business niches based upon safety, particularly fall hazard solutions. Professionalism and pride in teamwork have been restored in those workforces. Juries fundamentally know that gravity always works on the earth, despite TV and movie-screen stunts and computer-generated images to the contrary. However, Figure 1.2 Annual workplace fatalities, showing trendline (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Labor, 1994–2018) Sold by ASSP to Jeremy Bokun on 01/26/2024, Order #1001977949 Single user only, copying and networking prohibited. This document is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or distributed to any other party very different from forces impacting a rope strung between two anchors, known as a horizontal lifeline. It turned out that a rope held between two anchors, when impacted laterally, could produce forces 16 times greater than those produced on a vertical lifeline. This was the reason the employer should not have used wire rope with a diameter of ¼ in., which snapped. It was demonstrated that a short rope held at each end and pulled by two stout anchors (volunteers) could easily be displaced when pulled laterally with a small finger, thereby dragging the resisting volunteers with the pulling person in the middle. This shows that the force is multiplied, but that is not obvious without proper training. Fall protection, as a safety system, must be planned; it cannot be improvised on the spur of the moment. Planning is an essential element of providing a safe workplace for employees whose work involves potential fall hazards. Planning decreases risk and simplifies both the work and training required. Managers who cling to the popular misconception that safety is just an expense are amazed to find that productivity has repeatedly been shown to increase by as much as 35 percent when a company makes safety a priority. The cost of fall protection is measured not just in lives and dollars but also in the currency of engineering, equip­ ment, training, and enforcement. It is a tragedy that personal injury attorneys are frequently searching for solutions to prevent fall incidents to a greater extent than some safety departments. Understandably, there are many hazards that industry must recognize and analyze—in contrast to the attorneys, who need only focus on the one hazard that led to a specific incident. Elimination of fall hazards is the only long-term solution for organizations currently planning The Importance of Fall Protection 3 jurors are often not sure whether injured workers knew they would be severely injured or killed if they fell. For some victims, the fall is a death sentence. And only a survivor knows the agony and despair of experiencing lifelong pain or disability after a fall. We are now in the age when industry can recognize and eliminate fall hazards on the drawing board! This book can help responsible individuals and organizations find solutions for existing hazards, assist in recognizing new fall hazards, plan, and then implement a range of workable solutions. level—of those, 50 (6%) were a result of collapsing structure or equipment and 83 (11%) were falls through surfaces or existing openings. By far, construction is the industry most at risk from falls to a lower level, as shown in Figure 1.4. The number of deaths due to falls to a lower level reached 353 in 2015, a 36 percent increase from 2011. Between 2003 and 2015, a total of 4,439 construction workers died from falls to a lower level, about 341 deaths annually. The numbers continued to rise; in 2018, 339 workers in the construction industry died as a result of falls, representing 46 percent of all fall fatalities. Falls accounted for almost 34 percent of all construction fatalities in 2018. The Magnitude of the Fall Problem Recent statistics on falls are worse than those of previous decades, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Fall fatalities have been rising by an average of 10 percent each year since the 1990s (with the exception of years of economic recession). During much of that same time period, overall work fatalities have generally declined. In 2017, fatal falls were at their highest level in the 26year history of the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI), accounting for 887 (17%) worker deaths. In 2018, that number finally began to decline (to 719, the lowest since 2013) because of a 14 percent drop in falls to a lower level from the previous year (713 to 615). Whether this de­ cline in fatalities will continue, remains to be seen. Figures 1.2 and 1.3 show the number of deaths and the number of fall deaths over the last few decades. Of the 791 fatal workplace falls in 2018, 154 (21%) were same-level falls, and the remaining were falls to a lower Sold by ASSP to Jeremy Bokun on 01/26/2024, Order #1001977949 Single user only, copying and networking prohibited. Figure 1.4 Fatal falls by industry 2011–2016 (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Labor, 2021) This document is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or distributed to any other party Figure 1.3 Annual workplace fatalities from falls, showing trendline (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Labor, 1994–2018) 4 Introduction to Fall Protection Fatal falls to a lower level typically involved injuries to the head or multiple body parts, while nonfatal injuries most often involved the lower extremities, multiple body parts, upper extremities, or trunk. The most common nonfatal injuries include sprains, strains, or tears, followed by fractures. Falls to a lower level result in dramatically more days away from work than typical injury events. Fall-to-a-lower-level cases result in a median of 20 days away from work compared with nine days across all injury events. More than 42 percent of the fall-to-a-lower-level cases involving days away from work result in 31 or more lost workdays. Falls to a lower level resulting in days away from work most often occur on floors, walkways, or ground surfaces (34%), closely followed by ladders (28%). New employees disproportionably are injured from falls, with 35 percent of nonfatal injuries involving workers with less than one year of service. The Bureau of Labor Statistics conducted an historic, thorough study of workplace falls in 1984. The study, which has not been repeated, showed that 85 percent of surviving workers involved in falls from elevation during 1982 lost time from their jobs. The average time lost by those workers was 31 days, 14 days more than the average for all other work-related injuries that year. In other words, elevated falls resulted in a productivity loss of six workweeks, nearly twice the average for all other work-related injuries. Many of the 744 injuries in this BLS study could have been avoided by effective fall protection measures. Although 47 percent of the fall survivors were working every day at heights exceeding 10 ft., 14 percent stated that fall pro- Sold by ASSP to Jeremy Bokun on 01/26/2024, Order #1001977949 Single user only, copying and networking prohibited. tection was not required. Twenty percent said they felt fall protection was not needed, and 47 percent did not consider it practical. These findings suggest a low awareness of the potential severity of falls from elevation and of the availability of effective control measures. Almost half of the companies surveyed in this BLS study had no requirements for the use of fall protection equipment, and 75 percent conducted no training. Sixteen injured workers were using fall protection equipment, but because the equipment was not properly selected, in­ stalled, or operated, they sustained injuries. For example, one worker fell 10 ft. and hit the ground because his lanyard was too long to arrest his fall in time. These National Safety Council and Bureau of Labor Statistics findings are not isolated occurrences. BLS data showed that 227,760 Americans sustained injuries in accidental falls in the workplace during 2017; 47,180 of them were injured in falls from one level to another. The median number of days lost per injury was 12 days for all falls and 19 days for elevated falls. Falls are also the leading causes of nonfatal, unintentional injuries treated in hospital emergency rooms (ERs), totaling 30 percent of all treated injuries (Figure 1.5), ac­ cording to data from the All Injury Program, a cooperative program involving the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Over eight million people were treated in an ER for fall-related injuries in 2017. Falls were the leading cause of nonfatal injuries for all age groups except 10–24-year-old individuals, for which struck by or against an object or person was the leading cause. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimated accidental fall-related deaths around the world to be 646,000 in 2018. After road traffic injuries, falls represent the second leading cause of unintentional injury deaths worldwide. Approximately 37.3 million nonfatal falls occur that are severe enough to require medical attention (World Health Organization 2018). NIOSH and state OSHA organizations periodically publish newsletters entitled “Fatal Facts” (formerly published by OSHA). Each newsletter details the events surrounding a fatal incident (including a technical illustration) and suggests recommendations to prevent another such incident. Approximately 50 percent of the available summaries are about fatalities caused by falls from elevation. This document is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or distributed to any other party Worksites are not the only place where fall hazards take their toll. Statistics in the National Safety Council’s (NSC) annual “Injury Facts” for 2017 indicated that of the 169,936 preventable injury-related deaths in the United States dur­ ing 2017, 36,388 (21%) were caused by falls. Twenty-five percent of preventable injury-related deaths that occur­ red in the home in 2017 were due to falls, second only to poisoning as a cause of unintentional death. Additionally, in 2017, the NSC reported the following: The Importance of Fall Protection 5 Economics of a Fall Falls from elevation are expensive. In the author’s experi­ ence, the cost of a single elevated-fall incident usually starts at around $500,000 and easily reaches $1 million or more when third-party suits are involved in severe injury cases. Associated medical expenses tend to be high due to the severity of elevated falls. Fractures, brain damage, paraplegia, and death are typical results. The broad 1984 BLS study reported that falls resulted in an average hospital stay of 10 nights. For those injuries that are not fatal, foreseeable payout can extend over the remainder of the worker’s employment years—sometimes 30 years or more, unless settled earlier. These direct costs, along with the lost work time, currently make up a significant part of industry’s overall financing of fall hazards. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has identified the four leading causes of fatalities in the construction industry—known as OSHA’s “Fatal Four Hazards” or “Construction Focus Four Hazards.” These four serious hazards consist of falls, electrical exposure, struck-by incidents, and caught-in/between situations. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2017, the Focus Four Hazards were responsible for 64 percent of all fatalities in the construction sector. In fiscal year 2019, Sold by ASSP to Jeremy Bokun on 01/26/2024, Order #1001977949 Single user only, copying and networking prohibited. Focus Four violations occupied seven spots on OSHA’s “Top 10” list of most-cited violations. The largest portion of the costs from elevated falls is incurred through workers’ compensation and third-party liability suits. The billboard (Figure 1.6) and yellow pages ad (Figure 1.7) help illustrate businesses that have evolved around falls. An award of $1 million seems small compared with extreme, trial-court-documented jury awards of $19 million and $24 million in offshore cases. In the hands of competent plaintiff attorneys, settlements are typically $3 to $4 million. Figure 1.6 Billboard advertisement for accident/injury attorney This document is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or distributed to any other party Figure 1.5 10 Leading Causes of Nonfatal Unintentional Emergency Department Visits, United States, 2017, All Races, Sexes & Ages Data (National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) All Injury Program operated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission) 6 Introduction to Fall Protection 1. The employer knew that a dangerous process, procedure, instrumentality, or condition existed within the company’s business practices. 2. The employer knew that the employee was subject, by his /her employment, to such a dangerous process, procedure, etc. 3. The employer, under these circumstances, and with this knowledge, required the employee to perform the dangerous task that could produce serious injury or death. Figure 1.7 A typical yellow pages ad. Attorneys’ advertisements make up between 2 and 10 percent of telephone directory yellow pages in the United States. And the ads are becoming larger! Several attorneys nationwide have like images to this—the national bird of the United States. In 2006, The Incidence and Economic Burden of Injuries in the United States (Finkelstein, Corso, and Miller) reported for the first time that the cost of falls exceeded the cost of automobile injuries based on total lifetime costs. More importantly, as the legal emphasis in each state continues to shift from worker contributory negligence and assumption of risk to comparative negligence, principals will be held increasingly responsible for identifying hazards at their sites, ensuring that appropriate precau- Sold by ASSP to Jeremy Bokun on 01/26/2024, Order #1001977949 Single user only, copying and networking prohibited. If evidence exits that the employee’s injury or illness was caused by the employer’s gross negligence, the employee can file a negligence lawsuit against the employer. Texas permits suits against employers for gross negligence where employees are fatally injured. The Mandolitis or “Deliberate Intent” case law stands in West Virginia (West Virginia Supreme Court 1978), permitting suits by employees against employers when employers knowingly expose employees to hazards. Several other states also permit such suits. The New York State Codes §240(1), 241(6), and 200(1) permit liability of an owner for a contractor employee’s injury. New York Labor Law 240 requires an owner to be responsible for the means and methods of a contractor and for safe work at elevation. California reaffirmed the exclusive remedy of worker compensation in the case of a small apartment owner whose roofing subcontractor fell while climbing a ladder to the roof. This document is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or distributed to any other party tions are taken and making certain that protection and training are provided. No longer may a simple warning in the form of a small exceptions clause in the bid document (requiring the contractor to meet OSHA requirements) be enough; owners must reasonably enforce their contracts with contractors. They must take responsibility for the safety measures of subcontracted work as well and, if necessary, hire an independent consultant to audit and advise on equipment or jobsite conditions. Indirect costs are recognized to be at least equal to the benefits paid by insurance administration costs alone. Work­ ers’ compensation (WC) laws are now being challenged. The WC law in the state of Ohio has been breached; injured employees in that state can sue their employer under the “intentional tort” doctrine, with Fyffe (Ohio Appellate Court 1994) being the key case law for an intentional tort and requiring plaintiffs to show the following: The Importance of Fall Protection What Is a Fall Hazard? A fall hazard is any location where a person is exposed to a potential free fall (ANSI/ASSP Z359.0-2012). Fall hazards exist whenever someone is performing a task at elevation where engineering controls are not in place to prevent a potential fall to a lower level. Because fall injuries range from bruises, scrapes, and twisted ankles to broken bones, paraplegia, and death, often with the same type of fall, all fall hazards in plants, warehouses, structures, equipment, and buildings should be eliminated or controlled. Sold by ASSP to Jeremy Bokun on 01/26/2024, Order #1001977949 Single user only, copying and networking prohibited. There are two types of elevated fall exposure: 1. During Work. Elevated work can be an integral part of a job or trade. Scalers, for example, whose job it is to remove built-up residue from tanks, digesters, or vessels, are often exposed to fall haz­ards, slipping, and chemicals on an ongoing basis. Other examples, often associated with construction or maintenance, include roofing, painting, sandblasting, pipe welding, masonry or bricklaying, and utility service work. Steel connectors also commonly work at great elevation. 2. During Access or Exit. In other cases, exposure to a fall hazard occurs simply while the worker is accessing an elevated workstation. Repair of a valve located on the upper tier of a chemical processing pipe rack may require that the worker use a fixed ladder 25 to 100 yards away, then walk along the pipe to the valve. Some trades, such as scaffold builders, provide a local means of safe access for others. However, fall protection for these workers, during erection and dismantling, should not be ignored. Access to work areas sometimes provides the greatest hazards, depending upon the access method selected. Use of a rental van roof to paint signs on an automobile dealership window is novel but inherently unsafe. Use of a 6 ft. stepladder, next to or within a few feet of a guardrail, raises the danger stakes. Running computer lines for process control away from the reach of heavy-duty forklifts puts battery replacement service 10 ft. overhead next to a column. Planning and coordination are imperative not only for repeat access, but especially for single visits. Wiring for the Internet and telecommunications has made utility access a significant hazard above almost every corridor, when old wires are not replaced and new wires follow no plan for their location. In his book Construction Safety Engineering Principles, David MacCollum has defined a hazard as being in one of three modes, as shown in Figure 1.8: dormant (with no one in the area), armed (persons in the area), and active (too late to react). Instead of “behavior-based safety” depending on training and responsibility, MacCollum teaches “design-based safety,” where a recognized hazard is neutralized by engineering means (MacCollum 2007). This document is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or distributed to any other party In Illinois, the Structural Work Act and other statutory employer laws have limited claims against general contractors. Architects are usually protected under the American Institute of Architects (AIA) contract documents from any “means and methods” responsibility for construction. The American Society of Civil Engineers Policy Statement #350 of August 1998 (revised and approved 2008) requires that project safety be addressed by the engineer of record. Also, Stanford University (1981) showed the cost of an incident was many times the direct cost and could largely be prevented by the owner or prime contractor. Some organizations have been listening. The Business Roundtable Report A-3, “Improving Construction Safety Performance” (1982), provides the basis for proving that good owner safety programs are highly profitable. The tragedy of the costs associated with elevated falls is that little is invested in the control of elevated fall hazards and, therefore, tremendous losses can be incurred. Investment consists of pre-job planning, fall protection design, equipment selection, training, and maintenance. Levitt and Samelson’s book, Construction Safety Management (1993), provides many helpful means for monitoring private contractors and subcontractors. Currently, many companies in American industry are still “self-insuring” fall safety and keeping their fingers crossed. Like the practice of indiscriminate and unauthorized dumping of hazardous waste, time is not on the side of these contractors. The aim of an effective fall protection program is to increase the investment in planning elevated work and to teach and observe workers in safe methods. This will result in fewer fall victims and shrink the losses from workers’ compensation payout and third-party liability suits or subrogation. 7 8 Introduction to Fall Protection What Is Fall Protection? Figure 1.8 Phases of fall hazards (Illustration courtesy Dynamic Scientific Controls, Inc.) What Do Workers Fall From? Industrial falls can take place during a variety of elevated work tasks and are the result of multiple underlying causes. Work tasks, either construction, including painting, welding, roofing, carpentry, sheet metal work, and masonry or bricklaying, or operating and maintenance tasks, such as repairing, cleaning, or installing equipment, place workers at elevation. In addition, other elevated work activities include loading or unloading material from trucks. The 1984 BLS survey had asked participants to describe their specific movements at the time of the fall. Twentyeight percent said they were climbing up to or down from an elevated position or location; 13 percent were walking; 11 percent were stepping from one surface to another; and 10 percent were moving backwards. According to BLS 2011–2015 statistics analyzed by The Center to Protect Workers’ Rights (CPWR), the primary structures from which construction workers fell were scaffolds (15%), roofs (33%), and ladders (24%). Other falls occurred while standing on objects, such as machinery or vehicles (Figure 1.9). Sold by ASSP to Jeremy Bokun on 01/26/2024, Order #1001977949 Single user only, copying and networking prohibited. preventing a fall from elevation by eliminating the need for the worker to ascend or providing a protected working surface such as a scaffold platform, an elevating work platform, or a workbasket installing personnel nets using personal fall protection equipment with predesignated anchorage points that fit the required task mobility, including travel to and from the workstation Fall hazard distance begins at, and is measured from, the level of the workstation onto which a standing worker Figure 1.9 Fatal falls to a lower level in construction, 2011–2015 (CPWR 2018) This document is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or distributed to any other party Fall protection includes systems and methods used to address the hazard of falling. Simply put, fall protection is any effective means of controlling a hazard related to foreseeable loss of balance or stability at heights. Notice the word “effective” in this definition. Fall protection is not simply fall protection equipment. Fall protection equip­ ment (such as harnesses, lanyards, and anchorage connectors) might be part of an overall fall protection system; however, used alone each piece of equipment offers no protection at all. Fall protection must do something to address risk to the exposed individual. Fall protection must be chosen to address the type and degree of risk present. The ASSP Z359 committee defines fall protection as: “any equipment, device or system that prevents an acci­ dental fall from elevation or that mitigates the effect of such a fall” (ANSI/ASSP Z359.0-2018). Therefore, everything we do to address the risks of falling from elevation is considered to be fall protection. In general, fall protection can be applied by: The Importance of Fall Protection Are There Fall Hazards in Every Industry? Nearly every industry, at some time, involves work at ele­ vation. The job could range from the simple use of a 10 ft. stepladder to change a light bulb, operating a powered platform 185 ft. up inside a boiler, climbing 200 ft. up a flare-stack ladder, or checking rewiring inside an attic. BLS statistics of workplace fatalities from 2011 through 2017 reveal that a variety of industries were involved. Although injuries in the construction industry were predominant (41%), nearly one-fourth of the victims were employed by manufacturers. Forty-four percent of the injured workers were craft workers, including carpenters (10%) and mechanics/repairers (6%). A large portion (24%) were working as laborers, while 12 percent were employed as operators. Other victims included clerical and sales workers, managers, and transport equipment operators. The author has found that annually, over the past three decades, these relative numbers change very little. Although elevated falls can occur at any time, in nearly every industry, analysis of fall statistics shows that certain industries are plagued by a higher rate of incidents. Certain industries, of course, require substantial elevated work. For instance, frequent elevated tasks associated with transmission and distribution operations in the utility industry are significantly different from operations within a microchip processing plant. For those industries with frequent activity at elevation, the probability of a fall is consequently higher. In some industries, such as trucking, the access problems to tank trucks, flatbeds, and soft sides, have hardly begun to be observed. Often, contractors are brought in to perform elevated work. It could be a maintenance contract that requires the contractor to climb unprotected towers and stacks to change aviation warning lights or a complete repair projSold by ASSP to Jeremy Bokun on 01/26/2024, Order #1001977949 Single user only, copying and networking prohibited. ect involving several crews. It is still not unusual to hear a company executive respond, “Oh, we don’t send our people up there—we contract that out!” Elevated tasks can be safely accomplished, provided the contractor’s em­ ployees are well trained, well equipped, and guided by solid requirements in the bid document and contractor rulebook to provide fall protection. This is especially important to the owner because of third-party legal relationships, which are not easily appreciated. Therefore, a workable system for establishing and checking procedures and then observing for compliance is critical and might even involve a local safety consultant who is qualified to review work. Industrial falls are the number-one cause of on-site occupational fatalities in the United States today. Yet, the methods to address a recognized fall hazard are many. Each industry works its own way through the options. Currently, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) is faced with educating its members on extreme fall hazards, confined space, rescue, and other hazards over 200 ft. off the ground. A National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) study of fatalities and accidents between 1973 and 1978 in Texas and California found the rate in the drilling industry was six times that of general industry. Of 106 fatalities in the study, falls from derricks accounted for 31 percent of them. Other industry categories, in which fall incidents occurred with frequency, according to the BLS, include transportation and public utilities, forestry, mining, agriculture, fishing, wholesale and retail trades, and services. More and more corporations are administering fall protection programs that are effective in their plant oper­ ations. Many plants have decided to apply specific direction to their contractors, and some even provide equipment and training for that purpose. Manufacturers of towers and off-the-road equipment are also realizing that they have a part to play in fall prevention and reducing hazards relating to access ladders and grab bars. Still, even the most sophisticated organizations have blind spots, especially in their operations with some contractors. Good examples are the painting of transmission towers and roofing work. The safety monitor is a greatly abused function that is acted out on roofs nationwide, and deficiencies are easily identified when a compliance officer or investigator questions workers. Falls, caused by slipping or tripping, can lead to more serious elevated falls and also must be addressed. This document is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or distributed to any other party must initially step. It ends with the greatest distance of possible continuous fall, including steps, openings, projections, roofs, and the direction of fall (interior or exterior). Fall protection must be chosen to keep workers from striking objects and prevent pendulum swing, crushing, and impact with any body part that is vulnerable to serious injury. The objective of elevated fall protection is to convert the hazard to a fall on the same level at the very worst—a fall from which, hopefully, little or no injury occurs. 9 10 Introduction to Fall Protection Fall Protection from a Historical Perspective “When one falls, it is not one’s foot that is to blame.” —Chinese proverb For thousands of years, people have used ropes and various knots to help move or secure objects against the forces of gravity. Bend knots were used to gain a reliable hold, and hitch knots were used in moving a load by sliding along another rope and, if necessary, gripping to lock the load in place. The practice of people climbing ladders and/or being suspended on ropes and using these same knots for positioning is primarily an outgrowth of the rigging trades. Some earlier users would have been found on sailing ships, in church steeple construction and maintenance, in mines, and in tree-trimming trades. Ropes and some type of body belt, for restraint or workpositioning support, were particularly useful during stormy seas and above the decks of ships. A similar development of harness, rope, and knot usage originated more recently from cliff and cave rescue, as well as from mountaineering techniques. In the middle 1800s, another type of arrangement became prevalent in the telegraph industry for pole climbers. Surprisingly, much of the advice on the utility industry lineman’s belt care and maintenance offered in a 1928 textbook still is valid today. Safety devices that were designed to be passive, until a fall occurred, began to develop in the early part of the twentieth century. Perhaps, because of photographs and publicity from investigations following accidents, highrise window cleaners were the first to take an interest in independent lifelines. Between World Wars I and II, several manufacturers of body belts and other fall protection equipment emerged. The first retracting lifelines were introduced in Sweden after World War II for mining applications. Around the Sold by ASSP to Jeremy Bokun on 01/26/2024, Order #1001977949 Single user only, copying and networking prohibited. same time, the first climbing protection devices that required no manipulation were developed; the US Navy and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) immediately began using them for tower climbing. In 1952, the National Safety Council (NSC) and the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) published a report on maximum arrest force based upon rapid deceleration tests of cadavers and anesthetized dogs. Later, these findings helped to lay the foundation for Japan’s 1,800 lb. fall protection equipment force limit. In 1967, the Boeing Company published a test report (Report No. 2-1886-09) demonstrating the superiority of harnesses and energy-absorber lanyards over belts and ropes. Ladder safety devices began to be widely used in the 1950s and 1960s. And during the 1960s and 1970s, the availability and characteristics of synthetic fiber ropes and webbing caused a shift away from the natural fibers used in lifelines and leather used in belts. Parachute-style harnesses became popular for emergency retrieval through narrow top openings of confined spaces. Research in Europe showed the use of a full body harness was a necessity for fall protection because of superior support, both during and after a fall arrest. Equipment standards were developed in the 1970s in many countries based upon widespread research into force levels on the body. Fall hazard tolerance by employers in the United States was on a plateau in the 1970s and 1980s. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) guideline A10.141975, and other A10 standards, reflected industry practice where anchorage points were natural and convenient; “tying off ” was the answer in these cases. Otherwise, no protection became a logical conclusion. ANSI A10.141975 was retired in 1987 under the ANSI sunset rule. Guideline A10.32 became the successor to A10.14 and was finished in 1997 but was held as the committee secretariat changed from the National Safety Council (NSC) to the American Society of Safety Professionals (ASSP, formerly American Society of Safety Engineers); A10.32 finally was published in 2004 and updated in 2012. The Z359 committee was granted the right to form in 1987 under the ASSP secretariat. With great support from industry and several construction companies, the committee issued its first standard in 1992 for personal fall arrest, ANSI/ASSP Z359.1, Personal Fall Arrest Systems. It took another 15 years to develop what has become This document is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or distributed to any other party Public fall exposure at elevation is presented primarily by stairs and a myriad of railing designs, followed by ladders, roofs, and walking close to construction site hazards. Tree stands pose a major fall threat to 30 million hunters, which is of particular interest to employers, who expect their hunter-workers to show up on Monday mornings during the hunting season. Mechanical engineering experts should evaluate design hazards of tree stands. The Importance of Fall Protection Employers invest in approximately 10 times more safety equipment per worker in Scandinavia than US employers do for some types of personal protection equipment. Fall protection and respiration protection equipment are approximately equal in purchase-volume, invested per year, by employers in Europe. In the United States, an estimated 10 times more capital is invested in respiratory protection than in fall protection equipment despite twice as many losses per year from falls than from respiratory incidents. It was not until the mid-1980s that several petrochemical companies in North America began to seriously address the objective of continuous fall protection. OSHA had proposed fall protection standards for a number of industries by 1986. Fall hazards were to be analyzed and appropriate planning steps taken toward the goal of performing elevated work with “no-fall” injury potential. The much-awaited oil and gas standard was dropped from the annual schedule in 1983 after the oil embargo occurred, however. The early 1990s saw the revision of the ANSI A10.141991 standard; the adoption of the ANSI/ASSP Z359.11992 standard; the introduction of the European (EN) fall protection standards; a short-lived OSHA Region 8 (Denver-based), 100 percent fall protection policy; and the State of Washington’s ban on belts for fall arrest use. In addition, fall protection became a major driving force of the proposed OSHA Reform Act (1992 Congress). This trend ended in 1994, with a Republican congressional majority in both the houses. The Ballinger Bill offered sharp cuts in enforcement of OSHA regulations, abatement of fines allowed, and a stronger emphasis on training. Sold by ASSP to Jeremy Bokun on 01/26/2024, Order #1001977949 Single user only, copying and networking prohibited. OSHA reinvented itself and went into partnership with several industries, including the roofing and wireless cable industries, reflecting the congressional mood. By 1992, several OSHA-proposed fall standards had been put into effect, with the notable exceptions of construction fall protection and scaffold fall protection. A former member to the OSHA Review Commission (OSHRC) was asked to revisit the issue of ironworker fall protection; a recommendation for negotiated rulemaking was accepted and undertaken. The Steel Erection Negotiated Rule Making Advisory Committee (SENRAC) report was finally submitted to OSHA in 1996 and, after administrative processing, the steel erection standard was proposed for comment in late 1998 and hearings were held in December of that year. The final proposed standard was posted in December 1999, and after a lawsuit-induced delay, became effective in January 2001. By 1998, the standards for construction (1994), scaffolding (1995), shipyards (1996), and longshoring (1997) were in place, and OSHA was applying the multi-employer worksite policy across all industries, identifying four types of employer activities (creating, exposing, controlling, and correcting) for possible citation. The challenge to the Multi-Employer Work Rules came when the Summit Construction appeal to the OSHRC was voted 2:1, in favor of the general contractor’s citation dismissal, based on 1910.12(a) intent. This was reversed in 2009 by the decision by the Eighth Circuit Appeals Court. In 2018, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals became the last of the eight to uphold OSHA’s Multi-Employer Worksite Citation policy. By the late 1990s, the general industry fall protection standard (proposed April 1990) was the only major regulation waiting to go into effect. Yet, most employers in all industries had adopted the full body harness by 1998, in conformance with the OSHA construction prohibition on belts and manufacturers’ instructions on proper fall arrest gear. Gravity works the same for construction and general industry activities, as recognized by the ANSI/ ASSP Z369 committee in 2014. Due to the absence of a general industry standard on fall protection, the only industry that remained adamant about the use of body belts was the warehousing industry for use with stock pickers, at various stock levels, based on the industry standard ANSI B56.1. In November of 2016, OSHA finally updated its general industry standards in Subpart D (Walking-Working This document is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or distributed to any other party known as The Fall Protection Code. This set of standards began to be issued in 2007 and includes the Z359.2 standard, Minimum Requirements for a Comprehensive Managed Fall Protection Program, which gives guidance on titles of responsibility, development, use of written fall protection programs and procedures, and minimum training requirements. Although use of specific equipment is not the only indicator of fall hazard approaches on different continents for the purposes of comparison, the following estimates from the 1980s may be useful: 11 12 Introduction to Fall Protection Surfaces) and Subpart I (Personal Protective Equipment) to address personal fall protection systems, closely matching the already existing OSHA construction requirements. The Difference between Slips, Trips, Stumbles, and Falls from Elevation There is no doubt that gravity works. When a person loses balance and the body moves from an erect position to a prone or semiprone position, a fall has taken place. The sud­­ den energy release and subsequent absorption during impact on one or more body parts often produces compound injuries. The injury is worse when the body part is held rigid in response to reflex or the fear from actually falling. Human beings are born with a fear of falling. Like the fear of loud noises, the fear of falling is easily observed in newborns by their intense grip capability. Unlike other types of incidents, falls from elevation rarely involve near misses from which people can be warned or learn about the consequences. However, it is also a well-known fact that falls are underreported. In many cases, the person sustaining a fall is not injured badly enough to take the time to even report that a fall has occurred. Most people are embarrassed after falling. They look around to see if anyone has seen them fall and then get up as quickly as possible and scurry off. The National Safety Council publishes “Injury Facts” every year, reporting deaths and injuries from falls. These numbers are likely significantly under-reported too, as many falls occur but are either incorrectly reported or inaccurately reported. For example, a fall in a restaurant kitchen may result in a worker reaching for support but inadvertently being burned by a fryer or by a pot of coffee. This scenario would more than likely result in a report of injury involving a burn, not a fall. Same-level Falls Falls are classified into four general categories: slips, trips, stumbles, and falls from elevation. Slips, stumbles, and trips occur on the same level, but can occur on stairs and on surfaces with elevation changes. Elevated falls occur from one level to another. Sold by ASSP to Jeremy Bokun on 01/26/2024, Order #1001977949 Single user only, copying and networking prohibited. Slips: Falls on the Same Level As a person moves along a walkway, there is a relationship between the supporting surface and the contacting surface of the foot or footgear. When the friction between these two surfaces is inadequate, a sliding motion—a slip— results. This slip, in turn, can lead to a loss of balance, and a fall. Trips: Falls on the Same Level A trip is defined as a loss of balance due to the foot (or leg) contacting an object, or obstruction, when the attention is directed to the path ahead. A slight increase or decrease in the walking surface of ¼ in. (6.35 mm) is often sufficient to cause a stumble (trip), resulting in loss of balance. On occasion, too much friction between the foot or footwear and the walking surface also can cause a Table 1.1 Loss of Balance Can Lead to Falls Loss of balance results in Fall Elevated fall: fall from one level to another Trip Fall at same level: fall down Slip Fall at same level: fall down Stair falls may include slips and trips leading to elevated falls. Slips and trips may lead to elevated falls when close to exposed or leading edges. Slips/Trips: high frequency—low-to-medium severity, except head injuries—high severity Elevated Falls: low frequency—high severity This document is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or distributed to any other party General Fall Categories The frequency of slips, stumbles, and trips tends to be very high; however, when there are injuries, they typically consist of sprains, strains, and ankle injuries. Conversely, an elevated fall that may only occur every five years at a particular site, usually results in serious or fatal injury. If falls on the same level can produce severe injury, certainly each foot above ground level increases that likelihood. Table 1.1 provides a brief summary. A fall occurs to a standing person when the body’s center of gravity is typically beyond the feet. Since we generally commit the second foot when the other is still stepping, an obstruction or slip puts us off-balance. The Importance of Fall Protection Stumbles A stumble is the loss of contact with a surface while walking or stepping up or down, which may or may not result in a fall. A forward stumble could be the result of an unexpected change in elevation, as when stepping off from an unusually high curb for example. Stumbles backward can result from a sudden change in elevation, such as an unobserved roof blister next to an unguarded roof edge. This can produce an involuntary backwards stumble that could be catastrophic. The Role of Housekeeping Poor or inadequate housekeeping, such as blocked aisles, exposed cords, and uneven rugs, mats, or runners, are a few conditions that often produce trips. A poor physical layout can promote dangerous shortcuts. The emotional state of the individual also is a factor in trips; primary causes include distractions and physical and mental health impairments. The potential for snagging of clothing, tools, and equipment during movement also poses a significant hazard that can produce a loss of balance and a bodily reaction, which causes severe sprains and strains. Frank E. Bird, Jr., has addressed this in his book Profits Are in Order (1992). A start, toward quantifying the problem, proposed by Robert O. Andres and others, is requiring a slip-resistance index of about 0.5. Sold by ASSP to Jeremy Bokun on 01/26/2024, Order #1001977949 Single user only, copying and networking prohibited. Elevated Falls: Falls from One Level to Another Heights add to fall risk by introducing the variable of acceleration due to gravity. The distance of a free fall results in increased force upon impact. A fall injury sustained when gravity is acting on the body results in greater force applied to a body part with the ground or an obstruction. Medical reports usually refer to blunt trauma as a cause of injury or death in these cases. Collapse of Work Surfaces Collapse of work surfaces usually happens on construction sites, scaffolds, or roofs due to insufficiently unsupported surfaces, on demolition or renovation projects because of floor-material degradation, or on towers and antennas because of corrosion. Before a worker walks on a work surface such as a commercial roof or metal decking, an engineer should have periodically reviewed the condition of the structure and deemed it fit for use. This review can be performed from aerial lifts or crane-suspended work platforms. Alternatively, subfloors can be observed from the floor below. When in doubt human access should be avoided or grating or plywood working surfaces installed for temporary use. Falls from Elevation A momentary loss of balance resulting from a slip or trip can often lead to an elevated fall. Grabbing onto something to catch oneself after balance is accidentally lost is rare. For this reason, a hand line—or worse, a handrail— cannot be an acceptable substitute for guardrails on both sides of a leading edge or stair. Unlike many workplace hazards, few, if any, near-miss incidents help people learn to appreciate the seriousness of elevated falls. Close calls or near misses that do not result in an incident (such as an automobile cutting in front of you on the drive home, a slight slip on a wet floor, or a trip on a stair) can serve to increase awareness that, in turn, generally leads to greater caution. However, once a person loses his or her balance and falls from elevation, whether it is 10 ft. or 200 ft., serious or fatal injury usually results. In fact, the worst elevated fall hazards are presented by the potential for sudden collapse or walking into floor This document is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or distributed to any other party trip, especially when moving from one type of surface to another. Unsecured throw rugs or raised door thresholds, resulting in tripping hazards in the home, can also cause problems; seniors would do well to put favorite rugs on the wall instead of the floor. Broken sign stubs on sidewalks or on other walking areas need to be dealt with immediately because pedestrians cannot easily see these kinds of tripping hazards, and a severe fall can occur. Especially troublesome are shoelaces that can catch on the obstruction and fling the person headfirst into the ground or another object. Shoelace loops from one shoe can catch on the other shoe’s lacing hooks, resulting in an abrupt fall, and a likely head injury. Another common problem is stepping on loose shoelaces from the other shoe, which can produce a stumble. 13 14 Introduction to Fall Protection holes left after temporarily placed covers have been lifted and lighting conditions are not the best. Reflex is the ability to respond in an emergency; it is reflected in an innate response to danger when it is perceived. Falling provokes the use of the hands and arms to shield the face and head by reaching in the direction of danger sensed and seen. A typical fall response is for the individual to try to break the fall by reaching to deflect or grabbing onto something. Certain reflex responses occur in 0.1 sec.; other reflexes may take up to 2.5 sec. if they require judgment and coordination. This is typically not quick enough for a falling worker to grab on to something or to prevent the complete fall. The laws that govern free-falling objects (including humans) are as follows: 1. To calculate the speed a worker has after falling for t sec.: v = v0 + at. Therefore, a person would have gained enough speed to be falling at 32.3 ft./sec. or 21.95 mph in 1 sec.; 64.4 ft./sec. (43.9 mph) in 2 sec.; 96.6 ft./sec. (65.9 mph) in 3 sec.; 128.8 ft./sec. (87.82 mph) in 4 sec.; and so on. 2. To calculate the distance a worker falls after t sec.: s = v0t + at 2/2. Therefore, a person would have fallen 16.1 ft. in 1 sec.; 64.4 ft. in 2 sec.; 144.9 ft. in 3 sec.; 257.6 ft. in 4 sec.; and so on. 3. To calculate the speed a worker has after falling s ft.: v2 = v02 + 2as. Therefore, a person’s speed after falling 10 ft. is 25.38 ft./sec. (17.3 mph); after falling 20 ft. is 35.89 ft./sec. (24.47 mph); after falling 30 ft. is 43.95 ft./sec. (30 mph); after falling 40 ft. is 50.75 ft./sec. (34.6 mph); and so on. where: v = final velocity (speed) v0 = initial velocity, which is typically assumed to be zero a = gravitational acceleration: 9.8 mi/sec.2, or 32.2 ft./sec.2 s = distance traveled while falling t = time Sold by ASSP to Jeremy Bokun on 01/26/2024, Order #1001977949 Single user only, copying and networking prohibited. Elevated Falls Kill Workers Jeffrey Suchanec, a window cleaner, fell 400 ft. to his death from the Academy House condominium building in down­ town Philadelphia. All of his equipment—ropes, lowering device, and lifeline—immediately followed him to the street below. Suchanec was wearing a harness, and his rope grab was attached to the lifeline, but he was not as safe as he looked. There was a single cable stretched along the roof and around a headhouse attached to an air-conditioning unit at each end. Suchanec attached both his loadline and his lifeline to this cable. It was his fourth drop of the day, but his first along the final stretch of line. The three J-bolts, attaching the cable to one of the air-conditioning units, were never found after the fall. It is in situations such as this one that the older fall protection methods break down. It is difficult to ensure that a worker can select the protection strategy best suited to a particular kind of work or work method. Reliance on worker personal choice is not what elevated fall protection is all about. Fall hazards at the same level, on steps and on stairs, are an engineering subject involving visibility; wear and This document is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or distributed to any other party Fall Reflex and Reaction Time If we assume that an average person who is falling will stretch out his arm (24 in. from shoulder to midpoint of the hand), he would have been 0.35 sec. into his fall, traveling 11.35 ft./sec. (7.75 mph). Given an average hand speed of 63 in./sec., or 5.25 ft./sec. (the figure currently used by OSHA as a guide for machine guarding distance calculations), this person would have been falling too fast for him to even try to break his fall by grabbing something. In the best scenario, a person reacts in 0.1 sec.; using the formulae above, this worker would have covered a distance of 0.161 ft. (1.932 in.), moving 3.22 ft./sec. (2.2 mph). If the person reacted in more than 0.16 sec., this worker would have covered a distance of 0.43 ft. (5.14 in.), moving 5.25 ft./sec. (3.6 mph), which is just as fast as his hand speed. This would not have given him enough time to grab anything to break his fall. Given that reaction time is typically greater than 0.2 sec. (0.53–0.66 sec., depending on age), having no fall protection in place will ensure that a typical worker will fall. The Importance of Fall Protection Has Fall Protection Been Available to and Used by Elevated Fall Victims? In a unique 1984 BLS study, 10 percent of fall victims surveyed had been provided with fall arrest systems; however, more than 75 percent were not attached to a lifeline or structure. The majority of these workers reported that they were unwilling or unable to connect their body support because they were moving around. A few stated that there was no place to connect their equipment. Sixteen workers were using fall protection equipment at the time of their elevated falls. For 10 of these workers, the fall protection consisted of a belt, attached with a lanyard, yet four sustained back injuries from the fall arrest. That small sample of work-related incidents clearly indicated that too many workers in American industry are not only injured or killed when falling from one level to another, but a substantial number of falls resulted from a failure to properly use and attach the fall arrest equipment. BLS statistics tell us that from 1992 to 1999 fatal falls accounted for 10–11 percent of all fatal work injuries, increasing to 12–14 percent during 2000–2006 (DOL/ Sold by ASSP to Jeremy Bokun on 01/26/2024, Order #1001977949 Single user only, copying and networking prohibited. BLS 2008) and rose to 17 percent by 2017. This suggests strongly that similar usage failures, despite great strides in training, regulations, standards, and equipment, remain. This problem is not isolated within one industry or one work task. Either fall protection is still not being adequately provided or the equipment that is provided is being used or applied improperly. What’s Wrong with Present Methods of Fall Protection? Many employers regard fall hazards as a necessary occupational risk and overlook them, depending instead on workers’ practical ability. The typical philosophy has been to encourage workers exposed to fall hazards to tie off when stationary or when working. However, the choice is usually left up to the workers—or, as workers often refer to it, “on-the-job training” (OJT). In this case, the risk factors for injury are overlooked, and the up-to-date standards are never consulted. The “tie-off ” concept is the idea that fall arrest equipment is provided to a worker and the decision of where to anchor that equipment is left up to the worker to determine while moving about during the course of the work. This situation is frequently encountered during construction activities where the workplace is constantly changing, and proper fall protection methods are not identified at each stage of the work. The tie-off concept is often implemented by employers who want to appear as if they are following worker safety regulations, but it will frequently lead to a false sense of security, which results in an even more hazardous workplace. Some of the many dangers of workers choosing anchorage points during work activities include: 1. The anchorage point is not approved for strength and reliability by an engineer; for example, anchoring to sharp angle iron can be dangerous. 2. Anchorages are not always located overhead. 3. Falls of 12 ft. can result when a 6 ft. lanyard is attached at foot level, such as on the top of a pipe rack. 4. Lanyards frequently are knotted, without regard to effects on the fall arrest system. This document is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or distributed to any other party tear; friction in wet and dry conditions; foreseeable behavior; and inclement weather, such as snow. Spills, over sprays, and mists (such as paint, oil, or grease) add to the considerations. Timely housekeeping can help control the variables, and a plan for material placement can limit trip falls on construction sites. Fall hazards at heights should be engineered out where possible. Remaining hazards deserve a backup system, for when the worker forgets or momentarily loses control. Why? The reason is because these hazards are so lethal. Eventually, conditions will combine to produce the scene for a disastrous fall, one that is entirely preventable if proper planning is undertaken. Case studies 1.1 through 1.3 at the end of this chapter illustrate typical examples of the fatal incidents detailed in OSHA’s “Fatal Facts” (first published in 1984) and other sources, such as the National Safety Council’s “Injury Facts,” which has tracked statistics of preventable, fatal accidents since the 1920s. Fatality Assessment and Control (FACE) reports, undertaken by NIOSH and approximately 13 state partners, have produced a wealth of well-reported data into the causes of falls and accidental deaths, generally. 15 16 Introduction to Fall Protection Exploding the Myths and Mysteries of Fall Protection Should companies enforce the use of fall protection? The alternative to “fall protection by mandate” is not to let the safety culture reach the point where enforcement is the primary means of ensuring compliance with safety rules: mandate should be the avenue of last resort. At the same time, an owner cannot argue with a contractor all along the way to job completion; fall hazard exposure should be promptly addressed up front. Fall protection must be planned, reviewed at prebid meetings, and developed into workable methods. First, a reasonable access method must be established, and then a safe work Sold by ASSP to Jeremy Bokun on 01/26/2024, Order #1001977949 Single user only, copying and networking prohibited. practice. Fall protection standards and regulations help provide the basis for planning. Employers are responsible for informing their employees about workplace hazards and providing appropriate protection. Live equipment training and video sessions can help achieve the needed awareness and understanding of equipment capabilities and limitations—what words alone can never do. Workers often either underestimate the severity of elevated falls or have been indoctrinated or pressured into getting the job done with the available tools. They interpret management’s view to be “Either do it, or we’ll get someone else to do it.” A few express their concern to the employer, while others are content to cynically bide their time and wait for an opportunity to sue someone. Many workers assume that their management has addressed elevated fall hazards by providing them with a harness and lanyard, and they have accepted this partial form of safety. In legal proceedings following an accident, the worker often states that nothing was provided, while the employer says available equipment was never used. The truth is probably that the employer did not enforce the safety rules, which he later asserts existed. In the author’s experience, workers often express the following thoughts: Falls are a problem in the workplace. More fall protection should be used—we see it in government jobs, with large general contractors, and in apprentice programs. They’ll protect equipment falling with debris nets, but not people with personnel nets. Management says it costs 25 percent of the job more if we use fall arrest systems. I’d get fired if I insisted on fall protection. I have never thought about it. What Are the Manager’s Trade-offs in Thinking about Fall Protection? When management is uneducated about the benefits of workplace safety, or unwilling to implement programs that address all workplace hazards, they often have one or more of the following thoughts in mind: This document is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or distributed to any other party 5. Mobility is often impeded based on the location of tie-off points. 6. The responsibility sits entirely with the worker, who is not usually adequately trained to make these decisions. 7. This often ends up being a policy in theory only and is never applied (i.e., the full body harness is sometimes worn, but the lanyard is very rarely attached). 8. By definition, it means that a worker is unprotected and exposed to a fall both before and after tying off. 9. It means that untested, understrength anchorage points may be used and that the workers must judge the strength of any object. 10. It invariably means that the fall protection equipment must be wrapped around a struc­ural member and then attached back to itself— a method rejected by fall protection equipment manufacturers, and one that also restricts mobility. 11. It encourages the use of knots in rope lifelines and lanyards as a means of securing, but in actuality, bend knots can considerably reduce the rope’s strength. 12. It means that the shape, sharpness, and contour of the tie-off points can set up a cutting action, which can be instantaneous and catastrophic in some falls. The Importance of Fall Protection The above list of myths related to fall protection can be overcome. The most effective method of erasing fall protection myths or objections is comprehensive controlled, live training for workers at elevation as well as management. Training is discussed in detail in Chapter 10 of this book. Can Industry Work Practices Be Changed? The illustration in Figure 1.10 is not presented for the purpose of poking fun at tree-trimming work methods. Instead, it points out the need to plan fall protection for a particular work method before the job begins, avoiding serious, if not fatal, accidents. Far too often an industry elects not to enforce the use of personal protective equipment, even though it may be kept at the jobsite. Erecting scaffolds and steel or installing roof panels, for instance, Sold by ASSP to Jeremy Bokun on 01/26/2024, Order #1001977949 Single user only, copying and networking prohibited. Figure 1.10 An example of failure to plan involves some established work practices. Many industry people think a harness and lanyard are not worth the trouble relative to the time it takes to perform a particular job, except perhaps when the worker might be stationary for a time. But it may be that a harness and lanyard alone are not the best available solution for fall protection. While Figure 1.10 may seem rather absurd, in fact, too many incidents occur as a result of the lack of preplanning while lopping trees, dismantling scaffolding, or removing guardrails. Planning proper work access provides a key to the type of fall protection required. Random and incompatible anchorages contribute to needless fall fatalities. A qualified person is needed to check anchorage strength and feasibility. It is obvious that safety analysis, consultation, and training are required. Can industry work practices be changed? The answer is yes—even though the changes may be incremental. Once pioneering companies have developed safer work methods, others in the same or a similar industry will follow their cue and stiffen requirements. It starts when one com­ pany in an industry has the desire to succeed and the will­ ingness to prevail. That company will set out to break the bonds of traditional, unsafe work practices and achieve effective worker protection. For example, a no-fall-hazard means of steel connection has been developed and now is being practiced for exterior falls. Figure 1.11 illustrates this alternative. This document is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or distributed to any other party Everyone else in the industry does it this way. We’ve always done it this way. They’ll never use it properly. The time it takes to hook up is not worth the effort. She gets paid for working up high—the hazard comes with the job. It’s too much trouble. The idea is great... but they’ll never use it. It will tire them out, and that will be more hazardous. You just can’t predict where she’s going to be. How do you get the equipment down after use? In our situation, it is impossible to use fall protection. There’s nothing to hook up to—no such thing as a “sky hook.” They’re always moving; that’s why they can’t hook up. They should be careful, so they don’t need to use fall protection equipment. We tell them to tie-off—that’s the best we can do. It would take longer to set up the safety equipment than it will take to do the whole job. 17 18 Introduction to Fall Protection when prevention is not possible, to effectively minimize the effects of falls when they occur. The purpose of this book is to provide a tool that can accomplish that mission. Case Study 1.1 On May 6, 1998, a 39-year-old co-owner of a limestone quarry with 15 years’ experience was fatally injured in a fall. He had gone to the quarry at the end of the workday to burn empty explosive boxes that were located about 10 ft. from the edge of the highwall. He apparently fell over the highwall and was found 60 ft. below on the quarry floor. Best Practices Safety harnesses and lines should be worn when people work where there is a danger of falling. All work tasks should be planned to minimize exposure to possible hazards. This is the 22nd fatality reported in calendar year 1998 in the metal and nonmetal mining industries. As of this date in 1997, there were 29 fatalities reported in these industries. This is the fourth fatality classified as fall-ofperson in 1998. There were three fall-of-person fatalities in the same period in 1997. Figure 1.11 A connector fall protection lifeline system in place is the result of fall protection planning. Chapter Summary Falls from any height are the single largest cause of serious injury and death in the workplace. The solution to the rising toll of fall injuries and deaths is for organizations to commit to addressing 100 percent of their fall hazards through a comprehensive program of identification of hazards, planning and implementation of solutions, and training in accordance with the fall protection hierarchy of controls. The purpose of the 5th edition of Introduction to Fall Protection is to provide a comprehensive guide to address the technical and practical aspects of preventing falls and, Sold by ASSP to Jeremy Bokun on 01/26/2024, Order #1001977949 Single user only, copying and networking prohibited. Note: The information in this notice is based on preliminary data only and does not represent final determinations regarding the nature of the incident or conclusions regarding the cause of the fatality. (Source: US Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration) Case Study 1.2 MSHA 8000-7, June 1987 A contractor laborer was fatally injured when walking backwards while applying sealant to a mill building’s roof. The roof of the L-shaped building was pitched slightly to ensure drainage for rain. The victim was walking backwards, rolling the sealant onto the roof near the inside corner where the two wings of the building met. He was talking to a co-worker about the job when he looked This document is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or distributed to any other party Case Studies The Importance of Fall Protection 2. The employer must provide training to inform employees of potential hazards while working on the scaffold (29 CFR 1926.21[b]). 3. The employer must provide a positive procedure to ensure that concrete sections fall inside, instead of outside, the smokestack (Section 5[a] of the OSH Act). Recommendations Safety harnesses and lines should be worn when persons work where there is a danger of falling. Employees should walk forward when working near an area where there is a danger of falling. Note: This is a common perspective of eyeing a neighboring rooftop without realizing that you are on a different yet close-by roof. Consider temporary railings for this hazard. Remember, the eyes travel 10 ft. ahead and do not consider what is in between, so stepping into a void is to be expected and therefore guarded against. (Source: US Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration) Case Study 1.3 Brief Description of the Accident An employee was working on a scaffold near the top of a 250 ft. smokestack when a section of concrete being removed fell onto the scaffold, knocking the employee off. The employee was not tied off with a safety belt and lanyard and fell to the ground below. Sources of Help Title 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1926— OSHA construction standards. It is available from the Superintendent of Documents. Note: A common source of falls is being hit by falling objects. Personnel must be kept away from the exposed area or otherwise protected adequately. All objects that may fall must be barricaded or secured. (Source: US Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration) Review Questions Test your knowledge on the importance of fall protection presented in Chapter 1 by answering these questions. 1. Using Figure 1.12, develop an argument to present to your board of directors about why the company’s safety budget should be increased to invest in a comprehensive fall protection program. Inspection Results As a result of its accident investigation, OSHA issued citations alleging two willful and several serious violations. The OSHA construction standards include requirements, which, if they had been followed in this case, might have prevented this fatality. Accident Prevention Recommendations 1. The employer must install standard guardrails (toprail, midrail, and toeboards) on all open sides and ends of the bracket scaffold around the top of the smokestack (29 CFR 1926.451[a]; and 1926.451[b] since 1996). Sold by ASSP to Jeremy Bokun on 01/26/2024, Order #1001977949 Single user only, copying and networking prohibited. Figure 1.12 The tragic business cost of elevated fall hazards This document is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or distributed to any other party over his right shoulder to establish his location. He saw the roof extending behind him, and not realizing he was working on the building’s other wing, he stepped to the roof ’s edge. He lost his balance and fell about 19 ft. to the ground below. He suffered numerous injuries and died 15 days later. 19 20 Introduction to Fall Protection 2. What are three reasons that fall protection planning is important to a successful safety program? 4. Describe how access methods can result in a high risk of falling during a work task. 5. How can an organization ensure that its contractors adequately address fall hazards while working on the organization’s property? REFERENCES American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE). 1952. Final Report on the ASSE Project: Safety Belts, Harnesses, and Accessories. Chicago: National Safety Council. ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2012. Definitions and Nomenclature Used for Fall Protection and Fall Arrest. Des Plaines, IL: American Society of Safety Engineers. ANSI/ASSP Z359.0-2018. 2018. Z359 Committee Guidance Document for Definitions and Nomenclature Used in Z359 Fall Protection and Restraint Standards. Des Plaines, IL: American Society of Safety Professionals. Bird, Frank E., Jr. 1992. Profits Are in Order. Atlanta: International Loss Control Institute. Boeing Company, Aero-Space Division. 1967. “Evaluation of Safety Belts, Lanyards, and Shock Absorbers.” Report No. 2-1886-09 (September):32. Business Roundtable. (1982). Improving construction safety performance: The user’s role (Report A-3). New York, NY Christensen, Wayne C., and Fred A. Manuele, eds. 1999. Safety Through Design. Itasca, IL: National Safety Council. CPWR. 2018. The Construction Chart Book, 6th ed. Silver Spring, MD: Center for Construction Research and Training. Finkelstein, Eric A., Phaedra S. Corso, and Ted R. Miller. 2006. The Incidence and Economic Burden Sold by ASSP to Jeremy Bokun on 01/26/2024, Order #1001977949 Single user only, copying and networking prohibited. This document is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or distributed to any other party 3. What is a feasible explanation for the fact that fall deaths in construction work have decreased significantly over the past decade while death from other types of hazards has declined? of Injuries in the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Industrial Commission of Ohio, Workers’ Compensation. 1986. Revised Code Section 4121.80 (Intentional) (August 22). Levitt, Raymond E., and Nancy M. Samelson. 1993. Construction Safety Management, 2d ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. MacCollum, David V. 2007. Construction Safety Engineering Principles. New York: McGraw-Hill. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 1978. Publication No. 78–190, Health and Safety Guide for Oil and Gas Well Drilling and Servicing. Cincinnati: NIOSH. National Safety Council (NSC). 2010. “Injury Facts, 1984–2008.” Itasca, IL: National Safety Council. Ohio Appellate Court. 1994. Fyffe v. Jeno. 100 Ohio Appellate Court, 3d 213. Philo, Harry, and R. L. Steinberg. 1979. “A Partial Revocation of the Legal License to Kill Con­ struction Workers.” Trial Magazine 15 (June): 24–28. Supreme Court of Oregon. 2001. Smothers v. Graham Transfer, Inc. 332 Ore. 83, 23 P3d 333. Stanford University, Department of Civil Engineering. (1981). Improving construction safety performance: The user’s role (Technical report No. 260.). Palo Alto, CA: Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). June 1984. Injuries Resulting from Falls from Elevations-Bulletin 2195. Washington DC: Government Publishing Office. ____. 1996. “Information for Preventing Work Injuries.” Worker Fatality Profiles 1992–96, Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries. Washington DC: Government Publishing Office. ____. 2019. Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, 1992–2018 (retrieved December 31, 2019) https:// www.bls.gov/iif/oshcfoi1.htm. West Virginia Supreme Court. 1978. Mandolitis v. Elkins Industries, Inc., 161 W.Va. 695, 717, 246 S.E.2d 907, 920. World Health Organization. 2018. Falls Fact Sheet. January 16, 2018. www.who.int/news-room/ fact-sheets/details/falls. 2 “We measure safety by the number of exposures, not the number of accidents.” —T. Allen McArtor, Federal Aviation Administrator, speaking on Meet the Press, August 22, 1987 OBJECTIVES At the completion of this chapter, the reader will be able to: cite OSHA/MSHA standards that apply to fall hazards summarize the history of industry standards related to fall protection apply OSHA’s multi-employer worksite policies to projects with more than one employer Introduction The purpose of occupational safety standards is to provide design and performance guidelines for equipment that can be used for fall protection. The purpose of regulation is to promote safety by requiring the use of fall protection generally, or in specific industries. Standards and regulations provide a basis for enforcement. When the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) do not address the hazards, other standards issued by bodies such as the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), and the Society of Auto­motive Engineers (SAE), as well as texts, patents, and journals then become relevant. US Occupational Safety and Health Act Fall Protection Standards The federal government administers work safety and health primarily through agencies of the Department of Labor, including the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). The Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of 1970 established both a set of laws that regulates the requirements for safety in the workplace, and the agency to enforce those laws, known as OSHA. OSHA regulations, called “standards,” are found in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations. OSHA has responsibility for general industry and for construction, shipbuildin