An Evaluation of Supported Scaffold Safety
![PowerPoint Version](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090122152538im_/http://www.cdc.gov/elcosh/images/powerpointicon.gif)
|
|
Michael
McCann, PhD,
CIH, Ken Halperin, PhD, Consultant
CPWR – Center for Construction Research and Training
- Total # of deaths
= 267 (38/year)
- 217 falls
(81%)
- 47 collapses
(18%)
- 15 deaths (6%)
dismantling scaffolds
- 6 deaths (2%)
assembling scaffolds
Source: U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics data
Research Methods
- Used a 150-point
checklist to evaluate scaffold safety practice
- Rated scaffolds
as acceptable or unacceptable
- Evaluated 113
scaffolds in 9 areas of Eastern U.S.
- Also evaluated
information on worksite, workforce, and scaffold competent person.
Results
- 36 of the 113
scaffolds (32%) were unacceptable and posed imminent hazards:
- danger of
collapse
- missing planking,
guardrails, and/or
- inadequate
access
- 77 scaffolds
(68%) were acceptable and posed no imminent danger to the workers.
- Missing
or improperly supported base plates
|
17 |
- Scaffold
not tied properly to building
|
13 |
- Platform
not level
|
6 |
- Some runners
missing
|
3 |
- Some jacks
overextended
|
2 |
- Severe overloading
|
2 |
- Some posts
incorrect
|
1 |
- Some braces
not tight
|
1 |
![](2.jpg)
|
#
fall hazards |
Missing mid
guardrails
|
33 |
Missing top
guardrails
|
28* |
|
*
Also missing midrails |
|
Improper
access
|
|
|
Climbing
scaffold frame
|
23 |
|
Other severe
access problems
|
5 |
Partially
planked platforms
|
26 |
Substandard
planks
|
3 |
- 36 scaffolds
were unacceptable
- 23 had both structural
flaws and fall hazards
- 10 had fall hazards
only
- 3 had structural
flaws only
- 36 scaffolds
were unacceptable
- 92% were
missing guardrails
- 83% had structural
flaws
- 78% had poor
access
- 72% were
insufficiently planked
- Required by OSHA
- 29 CFR 1926.451(f)(3)
requires inspections by competent person before each work shift
and after occurrences which could affect scaffold structural integrity
- Competent person
- Recognize
hazards
- Authorized
to take corrective action
- 104 sites had
workers present
- 82 (79%) had
competent persons
- 10 sites (10%)
said competent person was not present
- 72 competent
persons were interviewed
- Only 32 (44%)
had scaffold safety training
- 32 sites had
competent persons who had scaffold safety training
- 25 scaffolds
(78%) were acceptable
- 62 sites had
no competent person or had one without scaffold safety training
- 24 scaffolds
(39%) were acceptable
- 72 scaffolds
erected by scaffold user
- 41 scaffolds erected
by scaffold erection contractor
- 49 scaffolds erected
by union contractors
- 64 scaffolds erected
by non-union contractors
- 86/113 scaffolds
(76%) were frame scaffolds
- 54 frame
scaffolds (63%) were acceptable
- 27 scaffolds
(24%) were other types of scaffolds
- 23 other
scaffolds (85%) were acceptable
- Unacceptable
scaffolds have both:
- Structural
flaws
- Missing
or improperly supported base plates
- Improper
tying off to building
- Uneven
platform slope
- Fall protection
hazards
- Missing
planking and/or guardrails
- Inadequate
access
- Strong correlations
with:
- Presence
of competent person with scaffold safety training
- Use of non-frame
scaffolds
- Scaffold
erected by scaffold erection company
- Slightly weaker
correlation with union status of scaffold erector
- No correlation
with:
- Location
n Site size
- Number of
workers on the scaffold
- Trade of
scaffold workers
- Hire an outside
scaffold erector
- Have competent
person on site who has had scaffold safety training
- Consider whether
frame scaffolds are the best choice
- Perform regular
inspections
- Check for missing
planks on platforms
- Check for missing
guardrails
- Check for proper
access
- Check for proper
tying off to buildings
- Note: The first
3 points find 92% of unacceptable scaffolds
CPWR – Center for Construction Research and Training www.cpwr.com
This presentation was funded by research grant U60 CCU 317202 from the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) through CPWR – Center for Construction Research and Training, Silver Spring, Md. The contents are solely the
responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official
views of NIOSH.
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090122152538im_/http://www.cdc.gov/elcosh/images/line.jpg)
This document appears in the eLCOSH
website with the permission of the author and/or copyright holder and may
not be reproduced without their consent. eLCOSH is an information clearinghouse.
eLCOSH and its sponsors are not responsible for the accuracy of information
provided on this web site, nor for its use or misuse.
eLCOSH
| CDC | NIOSH
| Site Map | Search
| Links | Help
| Contact Us | Privacy Policy
|