OSHA Inspection: DUCKELS CONSTRUCTION

Issued

Jul 27, 1999

Abate by

Aug 14, 1999

Penalty

Initial $875 · Current $435 Reduced

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:  The
employer did not
furnish employmnent and a place of employment which were free from
recognized hazards that
were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to
employees in that employees
were exposed to the hazard of being struck by the concrete pumper truck
boom.
Among other methods, one feasible and acceptable abatement method to
correct would be to
improve the communication between the spotter and the operator.  The
American Concrete
Pumping Association stresses this aspect of pour safety and recommends a
meeting to coordinate
the communication before the pour begins.
a)  At Cordillera Ranch, Edwards, CO. (Duckels Construction jobsite):
Employees
placing concrete with a pump truck were exposed to the hazard of being
struck by the
boom.  The pumper operator and spotter/signalman had a communication
problem
which
resulted in another employee being struck by the placement pipe on the end
of the boom.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (see
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").
ELEMENTS OF A 5A1:
1.  The employer failed to keep the workplace free of a hazard to which
employees of that
employer were exposed:
Several employees were exposed to this hazard as the pour crew.  The
employees did the
placement, viberating, and finishing of the concrete.  They gave the
signals used during
the pour.  Using the pumper is the most efficient way to place that much
concrete in
forms of this size, but the employees in the area are all exposed to the
hazard of a heavy
pipe and tube as well as falling concrete from such an operation.
2.  The hazard was recognized:
The site superintendent told the crew to be careful.  He also reported
that the operator
was "Rough" to the company on an earlier pour.  The employees knew the
pipe was
heavy and hard to handle from prior experience.  The ACPA addresses the
hazard in
their safety manuals several times.  The manufacturers of concrete pumpers
place proper
signal posters, and warnings on their vehicles
3.  The hazard was causing or was likely to cause death or serious
physical harm:
The movement of heavy loads by using long, powerful hydrolic arms is
something that
a reasonable man would consider dangerous.  The fact an employee was
struck and
knocked off a work platform confirms the hazard.  There are several
recorded incidents
where pumpers have been involved in.
4.  There was a feasible and useful method to correct the hazard:
The ACPA addresses the problem by suggesting the movement of the operator
for depth
perception improvement, and states several times in their manuals that
someone who can
signal and is responsible should discuss the operation with the operator
before the pour
begins.

Issued

Jul 27, 1999

Abate by

Aug 14, 1999

Penalty

Initial $700 · Current $350 Reduced

Issued

Jul 27, 1999

Abate by

Aug 3, 1999

Issued

Jul 27, 1999

Abate by

Aug 3, 1999

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $1,600 Reduced

Issued

Jul 27, 1999

Abate by

Aug 2, 1999

Issued

Jul 27, 1999

Abate by

Jul 30, 1999

Issued

Jul 27, 1999

Abate by

Jul 30, 1999

Issued

Jul 27, 1999

Abate by

Sep 13, 1999

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $1,600 Reduced

Issued

Jul 27, 1999

Abate by

Sep 13, 1999