Proactive Fall Protection Solutions Can Save Lives

A commitment to worker safety is an effective way for an organization looking to protect its greatest asset—its people. It can also help attract the best talent, differentiate itself from competitors, and lower overall worker’s compensation costs. In a U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report with data spanning from 2018-2022, over 1,000 people were fatally injured from falls or falling objects each year. In another BLS report covering FY 2021-2022, over 1.3 million occupational injuries were due to slips, trips, and falls. Most companies could greatly benefit from evaluating their current fall protection program and seeking methods & solutions to improve safety to ensure they do not further contribute to those statistics.

It is also important to know what federal, state, and industry-specific regulations must be met to maintain minimum legal compliance. For example, employers who have workers in shipyards must provide fall protection to employees exposed to a fall hazard of five feet or greater, per the OSHA 1910 standard. However, longshoring operations, defined by OSHA 1918 as “the loading, unloading, moving or handling of cargo, ship's stores, gear, or any other materials, into, in, on, or out of any vessel” are only subject to provide fall protection to workers exposed to falls of eight feet or greater. Further safety requirements specific to the maritime industry are also detailed in the OSHA 1918 standard. Additionally, OSHA requires employers to provide information & training about workplace hazards and how to prevent them.

This article will highlight two incidents to learn what went wrong, how the worker was fatally injured, and what actions, methods, or solutions could have prevented these incidents. OSHA believes all fall injuries are preventable, and with the proper investment in proactive measures, they certainly can be avoided.

?

Incident #1

A crane operator, two dump truck drivers, and a laborer were unloading scrap steel from a barge moored to a floating dock. The crew was almost finished unloading the barge but had to reposition to finish the job. The crane operator instructed the two drivers to leave their trucks & release mooring lines so the barge could be moved forward along the dock. One driver went to the barge’s bowside to loosen ropes and the other to the stern, but the second driver could not reach the barge. The second driver climbed atop a concrete barricade on the floating dock to try and mount the barge. As they attempted to pull themselves onto the barge and grab the ropes, it began to drift away from the dock. This put the worker in a risky position where their hands were on the barge, but their feet were on the dock. The laborer was near the stern and attempted to grab the prone worker by their clothing but was unsuccessful, and the worker fell into the water head-first.

The driver was wearing a personal flotation device, but before a rescue could be accomplished, the barge drifted back towards the dock and pinned the victim. The crane operator reacted quickly to try and use the crane’s grapple to move & hold the barge away from the victim, but unfortunately, the driver died as a result of being crushed by the barge.

This incident’s victim was employed as a locomotive engineer & truck driver, not a skilled maritime worker. The task they were performing at the time of the accident was not one of their regularly assigned tasks. They had also received insufficient training in marine terminal operations five months before the incident occurred. Additionally, the employer failed to provide a safe means of access from the floating dock to the barge. The only ladder available on the site had been removed to avoid being damaged by a front-end loader.

A few proactive measures taken could have saved the life of this worker. Additional training should have been performed to ensure the worker was made aware of the unique risks associated with working in marine terminals. This training could have educated the worker that gangways or secured ladders should be used to access a barge, and that climbing atop the concrete barricade was an unsafe practice. At the very least, the worker’s training could have empowered them to recognize the hazard and request better means of accessing the barge before proceeding. Additionally, the removed ladder could have simply been moved to an area accessible to the unloading crew so they could use it when needed. In this case, it could have provided the victim with a means to mount the barge when adjusting the mooring lines.

A davit arm system installed on this barge could have provided an overhead anchorage and means to connect a personal fall arrest system for workers on nearby docks or floating docks. At the very least, it could prevent workers from accidentally falling into the water and making their rescue much easier. And in the case of this incident, it would have prevented the victim from being crushed by the barge. With the use of a self-retracting lifeline (SRL), the victim likely would not have fallen far enough to be submerged at all and could have avoided being pinned between the barge and floating dock.

?

Incident #2

A crew of longshoremen & their supervisors were working to unload boxes of frozen fish onto a tramper vessel from two catcher/processer vessels rafted to the sides of the tramper. After completing an exhausting 10-hour shift, three longshoremen prepared to take the tugboat back to shore. On these specific vessels, the typical method of exiting the tramper was a Jacob’s ladder placed over one side of the vessel. But with the two fishing vessels rafted to the side of the tramper, the crew had to prepare a 20-foot single rope rung-style Jacob’s ladder on the tramper’s stern. ?The ladder was not secured at the bottom and there was only one deckhand aboard the tugboat attempting to hold the bottom of the ladder in place while the crew began their descent. Strong winds & high waves were rocking the vessel, making it even more difficult to hold the Jacob’s ladder steady.

The first of the three successfully descended the ladder onto the tugboat. However, the second crew member paused approximately five feet into their descent. The longshoreman froze, began shaking, and told their crew he did not think they could continue. Another longshoreman tried talking to them to calm their nerves and convince them to finish the descent, but the victim fell backward off the ladder and struck their head on the housing of the tugboat’s wheelhouse before landing on deck. The victim unfortunately died from their injuries.

In this incident, the supervisors or workers present should have taken the time to construct an OSHA-compliant Jacob’s ladder before descending onto the tugboat, at the very least. OSHA 1918.23(a) states “Jacob's ladders shall be of the double rung or flat tread type [wood steps].” Additionally, the Jacob’s ladder was not secured to the tugboat. A properly secured & more stable Jacob’s ladder could have prevented the worker from feeling uneasy about the climb and pausing during descent.

Furthermore, fall protection controls & equipment like Jacob’s ladders are only as effective as their construction. This incident is another example where if solutions were present to provide the crew with anchor points to connect fall protection systems, they could more safely climb on & off their vessel with control measures to mitigate the risk of falling. Many davit arm systems are removable and only require flush-mount bases to hold the system when needed. With multiple bases installed, these portable systems can provide crews with multiple options for overhead tie-off in case their normal means of disembarking from the vessel are compromised. For this incident, one could make the case that if a system like this were present, nothing else in the scenario would have to change (even if the non-compliant Jacob’s ladder was still used) and an SRL would have arrested the victim’s fall. And this worker might still be alive.

?

Overhead Truss Systems

In both incidents, the addition of overhead truss fall protection systems could have provided overhead anchorage options for those workers attempting to disembark or reach the barge. If the victims in the incidents were tied into an overhead truss system, both of their falls would have been arrested and their fatalities could have been prevented. These systems require permanent infrastructure to install and marine terminal stations would have to control where boats dock to ensure they are within range of the system. However, most people would agree that when worker safety is the goal, injuries can be prevented, and lives can be saved, minor adjustments to established procedures are more than worth the effort.

?

Conclusion

One cannot plan for the unexpected, but when it comes to hazards in the workplace, statistics prove that falls from heights can be expected. A proactive safety & fall protection program seeks to prevent falls from occurring and users from being exposed to potential falls. Disembarking vessels, securing mooring lines on nearby floating docks, or any task that could subject workers to falling into nearby water can be mitigated by incorporating proactive fall protection solutions.

The United States Department of Labor guarantees maritime & longshore workers the right to a workplace that does not expose them to risk of injury or death. Companies like Diversified Fall Protection can assist organizations and business owners in creating a safer workplace by assessing docks, vessels, or any maritime work site to identify solutions that can prevent falls from occurring in the future. Together, we can decrease the severity of incidents like the ones mentioned in this article and potentially save lives.

originally published in The Waterways Journal - Weekly Vol. 138 No. 12 - June 17, 2024;

link to full issue - https://now.dirxion.com/Waterways_Journal/library/Waterways_Journal_06_17_2024.pdf#page=1&zoom=100