As I sat at my desk, my eyes focused on the bulletin board next to me and spotted a magazine article that I had clipped and stuck there about 23 years ago. Starting to show the tint of brown from age, it still gives me chuckle when I read it and thought that I would share it with you.

Gentleman:

On line three of my accident report form, I listed “multiple barrel abrasions” as the description of my accident. However, your letter has requested a more detailed explanation, and I trust the following will be sufficient.

I am a roofing contractor by trade. On the day of the accident, I had just completed a reroofing project on the exterior of a two story suburban townhouse. As I stood on the scaffolding, at roof level, I realized that there were about 500 pounds of extra shingles left over on the roof and scaffold. And rather than carry these down by hand, I decided to lower them down in a barrel using a pulley attached to the scaffold.

I first secured the rope to a tree trunk at ground level, then climbed back up and loaded the shingles (as well as my tools) into the suspended barrel. I then went back down and carefully untied the rope, holding it tightly to ensure a slow and safe descent.

I will, at this point, ask you to refer to line seven of my report where it indicates my weight as being 142 pounds.

I was suddenly dragged across the lawn to the base of the wall, and then lifted straight up the side of the building at a rapid rate. Unfortunately, I forgot to let go of the rope.

About 16 feet off the ground, I met the loaded barrel coming down (which explains the fractured collar bone). Being slightly stunned, I still clung to the rope and continued upwards, hitting my head on the bottom of the scaffolding (thus the concussion and skull fracture), and was stopped only when the fingers of my right hand were two knuckles deep into the pulley. Being two stories above the ground, I was reluctant to release the rope, and remained momentarily suspended slightly above the scaffolding.

However, upon hitting the ground, the barrel broke open – spilling out the shingles and tools – and before I could negotiate my way over to the safety of the nearby scaffold, the barrel (now devoid of shingles or tools and weighing only 50 pounds) started upwards as I began a rapid descent down the side of the building.

After slightly grazing the scaffold (two fractured ribs), I met the barrel coming up. (Thus the fractured ankle and knee lacerations).

I then landed on the pile of shingles and tools (cracking three vertebrae and spraining my wrist).

However, it was at this point – I am sorry to report – that as I lay there on my back atop the pile of shingles and tools, in pain, unable to move or stand, staring up at the empty barrel above me in total disbelief – I let go of the rope!

Yours truly,
(name withheld by request)

I do not remember where I actually clipped this article from. Not even sure if it is a true story, for I have seen a similar letter elsewhere on the web.

The article does overemphasize the lack of common sense however. Sometimes when you find yourself in a disastrous situation as this gentleman did — you just may forget to let go of the rope.

Stay safe out there!

The Associated Press reports that the massive blaze that destroyed part of the back lot at Universal Studios was accidentally ignited by workers using a blowtorch on the roof of a movie set building facade.

An investigation revealed that a Universal Studios work crew had been using the blowtorch early Sunday to heat asphalt shingles to apply to the facade. They finished around 3 a.m. and followed policy of standing watch for one hour. Seeing no signs of fire, the crew then left for a break. A security guard in the vicinity spotted the fire 43 minutes later and reported it to the fire department.

The fire started on a streetscape featuring New York brownstone facades at the 400-acre property. It then destroyed a King Kong attraction, the courthouse square from “Back to the Future” and a streetscape featured in “Spider-Man 2″ and “Transformers.” It also gutted a building housing 40,000 to 50,000 videos. Fortunately there were duplicates of everything.

Low water pressure forced firefighters to tap lakes and ponds at Universal, which is a working studio as well as a theme park. The Universal lot operates and maintains its own water system, which is up to current county code. The blaze burned for more than 12 hours but was contained to the back lot.

NRCA’s Certified Roofing Torch Applicator Program

The NRCA offers a Certified Roofing Torch Applicator (CERTA) program designed to address the concerns of building owners, roofing contractors, the insurance industry, fire and code authorities, roofing material manufacturers, equipment manufacturers and fuel suppliers.

This program provides the latest best practices and new industry requirements for the safe use of roofing torches. According to the NRCA, the number of serious roofing torch-related fire incidents has decreased significantly since 2004 when the new CERTA program was implemented.

The CERTA safety practices for roofing torch use is available for download in PDF format. Click here to download.

More information is available at the NRCA’s CERTA webpage.

A new rule from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding employer payment for personal protective equipment (PPE) goes into effect on May 15, 2008. The new rule adds provisional language to eliminate the confusion surrounding payment for PPE required to be worn by workers under OSHA standards.

OSHA concluded that Congress intended employers to pay for PPE because the statute makes employers solely responsible for compliance with occupational safety and health standards. Additionally, a uniform requirement applicable to all standards that require PPE places the burden of payment on employers except for some safety-toe footwear, logging boots and prescription safety glasses.

OSHA reasons employee protection would be better served by a rule that requires employer payment because the employer is more knowledgeable, has control over selection & issuance, and is in a better position to get employee cooperation if the PPE is provided without charge.

The final rule published by OSHA follows the basic concepts and rationales of the proposed rule and clarifies the exceptions with a little more specificity:

• An employer is not required to pay for PPE that an employee asks to use that is different from PPE the employer has provided at no cost.
• An employer is not required to pay for ordinary safety-toe footwear or prescription safety eyewear provided the employer does not restrict use of that PPE off the job site.
• An employer is not required to pay for safety footwear with integrated metatarsal (instep) protection if the employer pays for metatarsal guards that attach to the shoes.
• An employer is not required to pay for everyday clothing. OSHA acknowledges that long-sleeve shirts, long pants, normal work boots and other similar clothing often serve as PPE. Clothing used solely for weather protection, such as jackets or parkas, also is excluded from the employer-payment requirement.
• Ordinary hand tools are not considered PPE under this rule.
• An employer may require an employee who loses or intentionally damages PPE to pay for the replacement equipment. Reasonable and appropriate disciplinary measures by the employer, proportionate to the employee offense, are permissible to ensure employee compliance with PPE care, use and maintenance requirements.
• An employer is required to pay for replacement PPE once its useful service life has been exceeded.
• Employees occasionally may want to use their own PPE. If an employer allows it, employees may do so under the new rules but the employer is not required to pay for the PPE. An employer may not require employees to provide their own PPE or make them pay for it. Employees’ use of their own PPE must be completely voluntary.

If an item is not PPE or not required by an OSHA standard, employer payment is not required. Also, it remains an employer obligation to ensure the adequacy of PPE when employees provide their own and make sure proper maintenance and sanitation of the PPE is done by employees. For example, an employer must ensure an employee’s personal sunglasses used for eye protection at work meet the requirements of ANSI Z87.1 as required by OSHA’s PPE regulations. Similarly, hard hats with sports team logos, which are commonly worn by workers, require employer verification that they meet the minimum requirements of ANSI Z89.1.

Employer payment provisions for PPE must be implemented by May 15. The new rules may not have a significant effect on how roofing contractors provide required PPE to their workers, but the rules may provide stability and structure to common situations where workers lose or intentionally misuse PPE that a roofing contractor has provided. The added clarity of the new rules should be useful in implementing replacement procedures for PPE, disciplining workers for lost or misused PPE, and resolving potential disputes as to the nature of work clothing and voluntary use of some PPE.

See an NRCA Special Report for more information.

In today’s world, the small residential roofer is at a disadvantage. They don’t have all the necessary equipment for most solutions or the manpower needed to do them in a timely manner. They make do with aging equipment, tools and even the trucks that they drive.

A monitor to keep an eye on safety issues is virtually nonexistent. No one tells them that they have to clean up accumulating debris, no repair crews come in to assess and fix equipment, and OSHA is not on site to document risks.

This post arose from an email that Mike Hess sent me recently. Mike is a Residential & Commercial Sales rep for Affordable Roofing and is no stranger to the ladder. Included in the email were some photos that you are seeing here now. They are only humorous, in that they make you shake your head in disbelief and wonder.

This Is Not A Step

If memory serves me correctly, the warning labels on ladders came about when a consumer stepped on the top rung of a ladder, had a nasty fall, and then attempted to sue the ladder manufacturer for not warning him that it was unsafe to do so. This was one in the many frivolous lawsuits back then that sparked a boom in product warning labeling.

Even with all the labeling in the world, you cannot get away from the fact that people are inherently ignorant. This page is a testament to what goes on every single day. As is this page and this page.

Safety First

According to OSHA, falls from an elevated height account for one third of all deaths in construction. Between the years of 1995-1999, OSHA documented approximately one fall per day and the trend is on the rise. Therefore, it is important that safety and health programs contain provisions to protect workers from falls on the job.

You risk falling if ladders are not safely positioned each time they are used. While you are on a ladder, it may move and slip from its supports. You can also lose your balance while getting on or off an unsteady ladder. Falls from ladders can cause injuries ranging from sprains to death.


So, in the words of Sgt. Phil Esterhaus, “Let’s be careful out there”.