Falls from Aerial Lifts Raise Growing Concern

Jim Weeks

Jim Weeks, ScD, is senior scientist at ATL International in Germantown, Md. Prior to ATL, he was on the faculty at George Washington University and worked as an industrial hygienist for the United Mine Workers of America. He has an adjunct associate professor appointment at the Injury Prevention Center at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. For the past year, he has investigated and observed uses of aerial lifts for the Center to Protect Workers Rights. He has degrees in industrial engineering and public health.

 

Michael McCann

Michael McCann, PhD, CIH, is director of safety at the Center to Protect Workers' Rights, the research and training arm of the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO. Dr. McCann conducts safety research in construction and has given presentations at the Construction Safety Council Annual Conference among other industry events. He can be reached at michael.mccann@att.net.

 

July 21, 2005 — Falls are the leading cause of death among construction workers, accounting for more than 300 deaths per year. Developed, in part, to make elevated work places safer and more mobile, aerial lifts have undoubtedly prevented many falls. But like any technology, they also come with their own set of hazards.

As part of an effort to prevent falls in construction, the Center to Protect Workers' Rights, the research arm for the nation's 15 construction unions, investigated falls from aerial lifts. This investigation included analyzing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI) and observing the uses of aerial lifts on construction jobsites in the Washington, D.C., area.

 

Deaths due to aerial lifts

A total of 208 deaths of construction workers from 1992 to 1999 were related to aerial lifts • an average of 26 per year • according to CFOI analysis (see chart). Of these, 70 percent were due to boom lifts, and the rest mostly to scissor lifts. Falls accounted for 31 percent of aerial lift deaths, and collapses or tipovers accounted for 20 percent.

  

Aerial lifts in action

More than 25 aerial lifts were observed during visits to work sites. Altogether, 19 telescoping boom lifts, six scissor lifts, two articulating boom lifts, and a large platform with 42-inch guardrails supported on the forks of a rough-terrain forklift, were observed. Most often, the aerial lifts were set up on hard, level surfaces. In three cases, rough-terrain scissor lifts were set up on wet but compacted and, apparently, firm earth. Ground clutter was minimal for all lifts with no visible potholes or other obstructions. Outriggers were observed twice — once on wet but firm soil; the other on an approximately 5 percent grade.

 

OSHA requires fall protection for aerial lifts. Scissor lifts fall under the mobile scaffold regulations. As such, guardrails are considered sufficient (29 CFR 1926.451). On boom lifts, workers are required to be tied off to the work platform with personal fall arrest systems (29 CFR 1926.453).

 

In this study, workers on only four of the 23 boom lifts, including telescopic and articulating machines, were observed to be tied off. Curiously, six of the seven tied off workers were on two-person platforms. On these lifts, either both or neither of the workers were tied off, suggesting peer pressure may play a role in whether or not to use fall protection. The OSHA regulations also require workers to remain on the work platform, yet four workers on platforms above six feet stepped off the platforms and returned — and none used fall protection.

 

There were two instances — both involving scissor lifts — in which workers performed their tasks in obviously unsafe manners. In one case, a worker at about 25 feet had to reach between two ventilation ducts; however, his scissor lift would not fit. He was observed standing on the top guardrails. In another instance, two workers were standing on a stack of supplies (about a foot in height) to reach the top of a wall.

  

Operator training

Findings related to operator training were similar, regardless of the source providing it. Training typically covered a review of the operator's manual and OSHA and ANSI regulations. Topics also included walk-around inspections prior to use, emergency shut-off switches, limit switches, controls, surface hazards (such as potholes, debris, curbs, soft ground, slippery surfaces), load limits, limits on boom extension, fall protection, electrical hazards, speed limits, improper uses (e.g., as a crane, jack, or supply lift), work restrictions (staying in the basket), and hazards of wind and other weather conditions.

 

The training programs differed by method, the amount of time devoted to training, and whether or not trainees had to demonstrate their skills before being certified or authorized. On these parameters, the differences proved significant. For example, the time devoted to training ranged from a cursory one-page checklist completed in 10 minutes to a program conducted over two days. In some programs, the trainee had to demonstrate his or her skill by taking a written exam or demonstrating proficiency in operating a machine. Most often, however, trainees merely documented their attendance. Despite the increasing proportion of Hispanic workers in the industry, no training, training materials, or operators' manuals in Spanish were observed in this study.

  

Future recommendations

Based on the study data, the following conclusions were drawn. Worker training must improve, which would require devoting a minimum amount of time to training as well as developing more effective methods, such as hands-on training, interactive instruction, problem-solving, demonstration of proficiency by trainees, and training in workers' own language. At times, workers need to leave a lift platform or get into an awkward space. Technological innovation could facilitate performing these tasks in safer ways. Finally, more research is needed to look into the causes of injuries associated with using aerial lifts.