Disagreements at Ohio jobsite may have led to the deaths of four workers
I faced the monster, but at the time was more concerned about the hand holding me 30 ft up in the air.
During citris-covered travels in the state of Florida last December, I had the opportunity to drop in on the Tampa-Hillsborough elevated expressway project (See Everybody wants in—and out, May 2004). The prime contractor, PCL Civil Constructors, was in full concentration trying to slide a precast piece of superstructure into place. The enormity of the yellow launching truss, used to position the segments, created a somewhat chilling sensation instantly and triggered an alert in my own personal security system. PCL had everything under control, which provided a fresh slice of confidence, but the size made it a little difficult to warm up to the steel framework.
After settling my nerves I decided to take a trip up to the bridge deck. PCL strapped me into the proper safety harness and launched my venture using an aerial lift. As the operator slowly increased the altitude and did a few “stop-starts” for positioning I couldn’t help but grip the railing a little tighter. My desk in the office doesn’t offer this kind of excitement. Right before stepping off the lift, I turned and looked at the yellow monster one more time. The intimidation had lightened.
Unfortunately, the launching truss used in Tampa is almost identical to the one that collapsed and killed four workers at the Maumee River Bridge site in Toledo, Ohio. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration recently unveiled its investigation on the tragic turn of events. Its police work cites contractor Fru-Con Construction Corp. for four willful violations of federal workplace standards. OSHA believes the accident should have been prevented, stating that Fru-Con did not anchor the launching truss properly.
While reading this report I tried to tape off my own crime scene. The questions started to cloud my mode of thinking. Is the contractor really at fault here, or did it receive bad advice from the manufacturer of the truss? Did the manufacturer warn the contractor of any wrongdoings? Was there a safety inspector on site every day to make sure the equipment was in proper running order?
Then I came across an article which appeared in the Toledo Blade on Aug. 1, one that painted a disturbing and disruptive picture at the jobsite of the biggest construction job in the state of Ohio.
According to the Blade, inspectors, field supervisors, union workers and the contractor were constantly launching verbal grenades at one another. In one specific incident, the Blade said a Fru-Con manager accused an Ohio DOT inspector of “playing God” when ODOT hit the company with a $288,000 fine for failing to meet quality control guidelines. The ODOT inspector logged the following: “I told him we are not here to baby-sit him . . . that we have told him enough times, and it shouldn’t be happening anymore.”
The Blade asked ODOT spokesman Joe Rutherford about the confrontations. His answer was they were typical on such big proj-ects.
Well, Mr. Rutherford, four people aren’t usually killed in one instant on large projects. Those in charge were ultimately responsible for the safety of every single crew member on that site. To think they were chucking dirt clods at each other is disgusting. I don’t care if the arguments were instigated by the contractor, the inspector or anyone else. If there is a problem at a jobsite, ALL sides need to work together to come to some kind of solution. Folding arms and slamming doors did nothing in this case but shatter lives of loved ones.
There also seems to be a substantial degree of learning required to operate the launching truss, which is a more common piece on jobsites in Europe. Workers here in the U.S. struggle with the loss of control. More equipment is now placed overhead. In Florida, PCL had operations running efficient and secure, but did admit to schooling itself at the beginning of operations. I understand the manufacturer offers guidance, and I would like to think there are other forms of training before all that tonnage is positioned above human flesh.
Whatever way you look at it, somebody performed like a worker-safety dropout in Ohio. We need to catch that monster—and all of its disciples.
More like this
Roads&Bridges Videos
Industry News
Products
9715 Products
-
The ComNet FVT/FVRHDMI transmits a high-resolution HDMI signal over one multimode fiber up to 500 meters for the 1080p60 format. The FVT/...
-
RTMS (Remote Traffic Microwave Sensor) is a non-intrusive, radar-based detection system renowned for long-term, worry-free reliability and...
-
Volvo almost completely redesigned its B-Series of backhoe loaders, which includes the BL60B and BL70B. Among the changes is a new set of...
-
Maximizing productivity and efficiency is the key to the eight models in John Deere’s K Series of backhoe loaders, which also features a pair...
-
JCB has extended the reach, both literally and figuratively, of its ICX backhoe loader with longer loader arms (by 4 inches) and an extending dipper...
-
Allowing man and machine to work together more efficiently was the goal of the upgrades to Terex’s TLB 840 backhoe loader, starting with the...
-
The C Series from New Holland Construction offers the B95C LR (long reach) and the B95C TC (tool carrier). The LR is more compact with a longer stick...
-
Case’s N Series of loader backhoes — which includes the 580N, 580 Super N, 580 Super N Wide Track and 590 Super N — are driven by Tier 4-...
-
The Cat C4.4 engine on the three new models in the F Series — the 416F, 420F and 430F — upgrades power while staying up to Tier 4 Interim emissions...
-
Versatility is the name of the game with the L45 Tractor-Loader-Backhoe from Kubota, a 3-in-1 machine with a 45-hp Kubota diesel engine at its...









