Fighting weakens an industry

Sept. 9, 2004

I faced the monster, but at the time was more concerned about the hand holding me 30 ft up in the air.

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.

Sponsored Recommendations

The Science Behind Sustainable Concrete Sealing Solutions

Extend the lifespan and durability of any concrete. PoreShield is a USDA BioPreferred product and is approved for residential, commercial, and industrial use. It works great above...

Powerful Concrete Protection For ANY Application

PoreShield protects concrete surfaces from water, deicing salts, oil and grease stains, and weather extremes. It's just as effective on major interstates as it is on backyard ...

Concrete Protection That’s Easy on the Environment and Tough to Beat

PoreShield's concrete penetration capabilities go just as deep as our American roots. PoreShield is a plant-based, eco-friendly alternative to solvent-based concrete sealers.

Proven Concrete Protection That’s Safe & Sustainable

Real-life DOT field tests and university researchers have found that PoreShieldTM lasts for 10+ years and extends the life of concrete.