Manson Construction Co.: OSHA inspections and violations

Incident on May 10, 2001: Employee's finger amputated when caught by hoist

A construction company was setting piles for a bridge on a new berth of a large metropolitan port. The 120-ft pile had been jetted into the ground while the ham mer rested atop it. Piles were set by jetting into place while the hammer rested on them. The hammer was used to strike the pile when jetting alone was unable t o move the pile further. The hammer had struck the pile once and the pile was ap proximately 70 ft in the ground when the shackle removal was attempted. During t he attempt, the hammer remained resting on the top of the pile, and the flow of water through the jet outlet on the bottom of the pile was continued. Employee # 1 was removing a shackle from the hoist line when the pile slid about 3 ft furth er into the hole. When the pile dropped, Employee #1's little finger on his righ t hand was pinched between the shackle and the pile. One in. of Employee #1's fi nger was amputated. Employee #1 was hospitalized. Employee #1 had set about 40 p iles in another location prior to the accident. The accident involved the first pile set at the new location, other than the indicator pile.

Incident on Mar 21, 2000: Employee injured when struck by concrete placement boom

At 2:55 p.m. on March 21, 2000, Employee #1 and coworkers were helping to build a dock for a new marine terminal in a large city. They worked for the general co ntractor and were finishing the concrete as it was being poured. A subcontractor had supplied a Thomsen concrete pump and placement boom, model TSS 50.14, pedes tal serial #2185030732, boom serial #1785030607, along with an operator and assi stant. During the course of normal operation, the articulating boom broke at the third section from the pedestal. The discharge end struck Employee #1 as it fel l to the deck and came to rest upon his chest. He suffered a fractured hip, pelv is, and left arm; fractured fingers on his left hand and the ribs on his left si de; a punctured lung; and a concussion. In April 1993, a crack had been found in the boom's top plate, extending into one of the side plates. Documentation indi cated that this crack was very close to, if not in the same spot, where the boom 's failure occurred. After the crack was discovered, the subcontractor, who owne d the unit, consulted with the manufacturer. The manufacturer issued instruction s for repair, provided a doubler plate to be welded to the side of the beam, and designated a weld shop to make the repair, which was completed in May 1993. On February 24, 2000, workers for the subcontractor visually examined the boom and found no problems in the area that ultimately failed. The manufacturer's written procedure for annual inspections of the boom called for visual inspection. Wher e visual inspection revealed questionable conditions, dye penetrants, mag partic les, or x-rays were to be used to confirm any potential problems. One of the two workers who conducted the examination had attended the manufacturer's inspectio n class. No metallurgical examination of the failure area was made. Visual exami nation of the upper portion of the failed area revealed rust along the entire up per plate, extending down the side plates and including the doubler plate. A vis ual inspection alone would have indicated no sign of the previous repair of the crack on the inside of the rectangular boom section.