Bark Company Owner 

Dies After Being Crushed 

By Ecology Block Wall 

Investigation: # 15WA02901

Release Date: December 19, 2016

SHARP Report: 52-39-2016
2

Table of Contents

SUMMARY...................................................................................................................... 3

RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................... 4

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 4

Employer ..................................................................................................................... 4

Employer Safety Training Program.............................................................................. 4

Victim........................................................................................................................... 5

Ecology Blocks ............................................................................................................ 5

Equipment ................................................................................................................... 5

Incident Scene............................................................................................................. 5

Weather....................................................................................................................... 5

INVESTIGATION............................................................................................................. 6

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS........................................................................................... 7

CAUSE OF DEATH......................................................................................................... 7

POST-INCIDENT CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN BY EMPLOYER............................ 8

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................... 9

REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 11

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. 11

INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION.................................................................................. 11

WASHINGTON STATE FACE PROGRAM INFORMATION......................................... 11

Appendix A................................................................................................................... 13
3 

SUMMARY 

In July of 2016, the 70-year-old owner of a bark and wood wholesale and retail 

company died from surgical complications resulting from injuries he sustained when a 

wall being constructed from concrete “ecology blocks” collapsed, and a 3600lb. block 

fell onto him, crushing his legs. 

On the day of the incident, the victim and three other employees planned to complete 

construction of an “L”-shaped material containment bunker on a base of dry, loose 

sand. They were assembling the bunker using dry-stacked concrete ecology blocks that 

interlocked on the top and bottom with a tongue and groove system. The blocks were 

lifted and moved into place using a chain attached to the bucket of an excavator that 

was looped through a rebar picking-eye on the top of the block. While the employer 

frequently constructed and used ecology block retaining walls for various purposes, this 

was to be the first of this height built on sand.

The first section of the bunker had been completed the previous day. It consisted of two 

adjacent walls, each approximately 21 feet long and 10 feet (5 blocks) high. When 

completed, employees reported that the walls appeared to be sitting level on the sand.

The second section of the bunker was to consist of an 18-foot wall, perpendicular to the 

first wall, with rows of 6-foot-long ecology blocks horizontally stacked 5 blocks high. 

On the morning of the incident, as the excavator operator was lowering the first block of 

the second bunker section into place, the victim stood near and used a shovel to guide 

the block’s alignment. The two other employees were working near the victim. As the 

block was set onto the sand against the base of the inside wall of the first bunker 

section, both original walls began to destabilize and collapse. The victim and the two 

employees ran to avoid the falling blocks. At some point, the victim hesitated and turned 

back to look at the wall and was struck by a falling block, crushing his right leg and 

pinning him to the ground. 

First responders arrived within minutes and transported the victim by helicopter to a 

local hospital where he remained in critical condition for nearly a month, after which he 

died due to complications following multiple surgeries. 
4 

RECOMMENDATIONS

To prevent similar incidents, Washington State Fatality Assessment and Control 

Evaluation (WA FACE) recommends that employers engaged in similar work: 

• Plan and design bulk material storage areas for safety and stability. Make 

sure all walls, whether temporary or permanent, are built on a stable 

foundation able to support the weight of the structure. 

• Develop, implement, and enforce a comprehensive written safety program

that is tailored to ecology block wall construction. Create Standard 

Operating Procedures that address hazards in both construction of and 

working near ecology block walls. Ensure that all employees are trained in 

and follow the procedures.

• Conduct a thorough job hazard analysis (JHA) before construction begins 

on any project involving stacked ecology blocks.

• Encourage employees to recognize and report safety concerns, and train 

workers on the protocol for reporting hazards. Ensure that all safety 

concerns are effectively addressed before employees are further exposed 

to the hazard.

INTRODUCTION

In July of 2015, the Washington State Division of Occupational Safety and Health 

(DOSH) notified the Washington State Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation 

(FACE) program of the death of a 70-year-old bark and wood products company owner.

WA FACE investigators interviewed company management officials, including both the 

current and former Environmental Health and Safety coordinators for the company.

Employer

The company is a bark and wood products wholesaler and retailer. It was purchased by 

the victim in 1994, originally at a different location. Around 2000, the business moved to 

its current location. In subsequent years, the company acquired adjacent parcels, 

growing the business to over 84 acres. The configuration and location of material stored 

at the site changes frequently due to business needs. At the time of the incident, the 

company employed approximately 130 workers.

Employer Safety Training Program

At the time of the incident, the company had a written safety training program, but it did 

not specifically cover hazards posed by ecology block walls or their construction. 

Training on the construction of ecology block walls occurred on the job from employees 
5 

who had past experience and was limited to those with direct involvement in wall 

construction. 

The company employed a dedicated Environmental Health and Safety Coordinator at 

the time of the incident, as well as a safety committee that met on a monthly basis. The 

Safety Coordinator had not been informed of the plan to build the wall. 

Victim 

The victim was the company owner. He had a background in agriculture and was a 

certified public accountant. He purchased the bark business in 1994. He remained 

active in all aspects of the business, and worked onsite regularly, up until the time of the 

incident. He had built numerous ecology block walls in the past.

Ecology Blocks

Ecology blocks are stackable concrete 

blocks designed with an interlocking tongue 

and groove system on the top and bottom, 

and sometimes sides, for stability (photo 1). 

Other names include Eco-blocks, bin blocks, 

and bunker blocks. They are manufactured 

from unused concrete left over from other 

construction processes. Common ecology 

block dimensions are 2’ x 2’ x 3’, 2’ x 2’ x 4’, 

and 2’ x 2’ x 6’. They typically weigh between 1800 and 4000 pounds. They are usually 

equipped with a rebar loop, or picking eye, on the top of the block for loading, 

unloading, and placement. Ecology blocks are marketed for use in retaining walls, 

storage of bulk materials, and other applications. Their modular nature makes them 

convenient to use when permanent structures would not meet the needs of the user. 

Equipment 

The ecology blocks were lifted and set into place with an excavator, using a chain 

attached to the excavator bucket and run through the picking eye of the ecology block. 

Incident Scene

The incident occurred in an area of the property that contained sand dredged from the 

nearby river. The site where the wall was being constructed had been previously dug 

out of the large sand pile, and was about one foot away from the base of an 

approximately ten-foot-high sand wall that sloped away from the wall. The site was near 

the location of the hopper used for a soil screening process, and would be used to store 

material used in that process. There was no asphalt or concrete surface beneath the 

sand. 

Weather

The weather on the day of the incident was sunny and warm, with no precipitation. The 

weather had been similar for the two preceding weeks. 1 

Photo: Shakespeare/Wikimedia Commons

Photo 1: Concrete ecology block
6 

INVESTIGATION

Around 9:00 a.m. on the morning of the incident, the victim and three other employees 

arrived at the site to complete construction of a material containment bunker. The 

victim, who was the owner of the company, had developed the design for the bunker. 

His plan was to create an “L-shaped” structure, approximately 10 feet high built, from 

dry-stacked concrete ecology blocks (figure 1). The blocks being used were 3’x2’x2’ and 

6’x2’x2’, weighing approximately 1800 and 3600 pounds respectively, and interlocked 

on the top and bottom with a tongue and groove system. 

The bunker was going to be located in the 

corner of a sandy area on site to house and 

store a bark product. Much of the sand in the 

area had already been used as part of this 

process. The victim felt that a bunker in this 

location would keep the material as near as 

possible to the position of a hopper used in the 

production process, as well as separated from 

another finished product and away from a 

sand wall bordering the area. 

The company regularly built and used ecology 

block walls and structures of similar design 

and height throughout the jobsite, in both the 

wholesale and retail areas, for a variety of 

purposes, but this was to be the first of this 

height built on sand. The victim and the three

other employees had experience building 

ecology block walls. 

During the investigation, it was reported that 

some of the other employees had voiced 

concerns about the safety of building a wall of 

this height on a sand base, but that the victim had indicated that he believed that the 

second wall would add stability for the structure, and continued with the planned 

construction. According to management officials, there was no rush to complete the job.

They had completed construction of the first section of the bunker the previous day. It 

consisted of two adjacent walls, each 21 feet long and five blocks high. Each wall was 

stacked in an alternating, or offset, fashion, so that the ends of the blocks in one row 

would meet in the center of the blocks of the next row. 

That morning, the victim and crew planned to build the second section of the bunker by 

building an 18-foot wall perpendicular to the first wall. This wall would consist of a row of 

ecology blocks stacked five blocks high and nine blocks deep in the same horizontal 

plane as the first walls. One of the workers used the excavator to lift the first ecology 

block and move it into place. The excavator was in the same position that it had been in 

the previous day, facing the completed section, and had not been driven at the site that 

morning. As the excavator operator lowered the first block to the ground, the victim 

Figure 1. Two views of planned bunker design

A. Top view

B. Side view
7 

stood near and used a hand shovel to push on the edge of the block to line it up 

correctly with the first wall. The other two workers stood near the first wall sections. 

As the block was set down on the sand against 

the base of the first section (figure 2), the walls 

became unstable and began to collapse. The 

victim and workers ran to try to avoid the falling 

blocks. Witnesses reported that, at some point, 

as he was running, the victim paused for a 

moment to look behind him, and then began 

running again. Before he was able to get clear, 

one of the blocks that had been on the top of the wall struck him from behind and 

landed on him, crushing his right leg and pinning him against the ground. Both of the 

other workers were able to escape uninjured.

Figure 2. Placement of block (in red) 

immediately preceding wall collapse

First responders arrived on the scene 

within minutes and were able to free 

the victim. He was transported by 

helicopter to a regional trauma facility. 

He underwent numerous surgeries, 

including the amputation of his right 

leg, and remained in intensive care 

until he passed away nearly one 

month later due to complications from 

the injury.

Photo 2. Collapsed ecology block wall. Arrow indicates 

block that struck victim

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS

• Attempting to build a ten-foot-high ecology block wall on an unstable sand 

surface 

• Lack of discussion of possible safety risks or hazards before beginning work

• Unwillingness to challenge the company owner about safety concerns

CAUSE OF DEATH

The death certificate listed the immediate cause of death as Medical sequelae of crush 

injuries of the pelvis and lower extremities.
8 

POST-INCIDENT CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN BY EMPLOYER

After the incident, the employer developed a detailed safety 

program and standard operating procedures that address

hazards in both construction of and working near ecology 

block walls. The safety training component of the program 

uses a three-tiered approach based on how much exposure 

an employee will have to ecology block hazards depending on 

their work duties. Employees are categorized as either 

“Certified,” “Authorized,” or “Affected.” All employees are 

considered Affected workers and receive training regarding 

the hazards associated with working around ecology block 

walls as a component of new-hire training. Authorized

employees receive more detailed training how to safely 

construct ecology block walls and are permitted to work on 

projects building or re-building walls. The training includes 

how to recognize hazards and the steps that employees 

should take to report concerns.

Certified employees receive the highest level of safety 

training. The construction of any new ecology block wall over 

two blocks high on the premises must go through a written

planning and permitting process (Appendix A), which must be 

approved by two Certified employees. Two Certified

employees must also perform a post-construction inspection 

of each new wall. 

Safety “tail-gate” meetings are now mandatory before 

construction of a new wall begins, and before the start of each 

shift for walls requiring a permit.

The company’s program also includes standard procedures 

for increasing the stability of walls when necessary, including 

doubling walls and 

binding blocks together 

using steel cabling

anchored or bolted to the blocks (photos 3-5). 

Cabling was used frequently before the incident, as 

well.

In addition, every six months, a safety audit of all 

existing ecology block walls is performed by two 

Certified employees to check for damage, material 

leakage, strained cables, or structural instability. If 

necessary, walls are disassembled and rebuilt.

Photo 3. Steel cable 

threaded through ecology 

block picking eyes at top of 

wall

Photo 4. Ratchet 

mechanism for tightening 

wall cable

Photo 5. Steel cable bolted into side of 

ecology block wall
9 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISCUSSION

Recommendation 1: Plan and design bulk material storage areas for safety and 

stability. Make sure all walls, whether temporary or permanent, are built on a stable 

foundation able to support the weight of the structure.

Discussion: In this incident, a loose, dry sand based proved too unstable to support the 

weight of the walls. If dry-stacked ecology blocks or similar materials are to be used to 

create bulk material storage areas, structures must be built on firm footing. Develop 

siting criteria for ecology block wall construction to ensure that structures are only built 

on foundations that can safely support the weight of the walls. The evaluation should 

take into account details such as soil type, possibility of compaction, and whether there 

will be adequate water drainage. A registered professional engineer may be able to 

provide guidance on development of these criteria and foundation requirements for 

specific walls. 

Recommendation 2: Develop, implement, and enforce a comprehensive written safety 

program that is tailored to ecology block wall construction. Create Standard Operating 

Procedures that address hazards in both construction of and working near ecology 

block walls. Ensure that all employees are trained in and follow the procedures.

Discussion: While the employer in this incident had a written safety program, hazards 

regarding ecology blocks were not specifically addressed. Interviews with management 

revealed that there was an awareness that working around ecology block walls did pose 

some risks. For example, some employees were aware that in the past, walls had been 

inadvertently contacted by heavy machinery, sometimes leading to wall damage, and 

occassionally blocks had fallen into material containment areas. 

If stacked ecology block walls are used on the worksite for any purpose, all employees 

that may have exposure to them should receive training to make them aware of risks 

associated with the walls. Training should also include how to recognize specific 

hazards, such as leaning or block damage, and how to report hazardous situations 

when they are found. 

The safety program should include a procedure for conducting periodic safety audits of 

ecology block walls to check for damage or instability. 

All employees who may be involved in building ecology block wall structures should 

receive further training to make them aware of the specific hazards of construction. 

Training should include how to recognize foundation stability issues, and keeping a safe 

distance as new blocks are being set into place by equipment operators. Only workers 

essential to the task should be present during wall construction to minimize worker 

exposure.

Furthermore, prior to the incident, the company had an active safety program, though 

without specific information regarding ecology block hazards, which included monthly 

safety committee meetings involving staff from different departments where workplace 

hazards were routinely discussed. However, the victim did not usually attend safety 
10

committee meetings, and had not consulted any other safety committee members prior 

to beginning the project. The company safety coordinator had not been made aware of 

the plan to build the wall. Owners and managers should be actively involved in the 

company safety program, and should lead by example by following all company safety 

protocols on projects they head.

Safety programs should be updated any time new workplace hazards are recognized. 

Recommendation 3: Conduct a thorough job hazard analysis (JHA) before 

construction begins on any project involving stacked ecology blocks.

Discussion: A job hazard analysis, or JHA, is a process used to identify hazards 

associated with job tasks, and then develop controls to prevent the hazards.

2 It 

considers the relationship between the worker, the task, the tools, and the work 

environment. By focusing on the steps required to perform a job and considering risk 

scenarios, potential hazards are recognized and mitigated before workers are put in 

harms way.

Performing a JHA should include the input of all employees involved in the task. In this 

case, the victim, being the company owner, made all decisions regarding the safety of 

the project. The company safety coordinator had not been made aware of the plan to 

build the wall. If a thorough JHA had been done involving the company safety 

coordinator and the other employees tasked with building the structure, the seriousness 

of the risks involving building an ecology block wall on a sand foundation may have 

been brought into focus. It is important that a JHA be conducted for every appropriate 

task, including those being directed by business owners or management.

The employer in this case had designed and built numerous ecology block walls in two 

decades without experience. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA) states that “Jobs with the potential to cause severe or disabling injuries or 

illness, even if there is no history of previous accidents” should be considered JHA 

priorities.2 While the process that the victim planned to use to build the structure may 

have been similar to previous situations, the environment (i.e. the loose sand base) was 

different, and created new risks. A preliminary JHA could have identified and led to a 

discussion of this new hazard.

Recommendation 4: Encourage employees to recognize and report safety concerns, 

and train workers on the protocol for reporting hazards. Ensure that all safety concerns 

are effectively addressed before employees are further exposed to the hazard.

Discussion: After the incident, some of the workers involved reported that they had felt 

that building ecology block walls on sandy ground was not safe, but were assured by 

the victim that the structure would be stable when completed. In this situation, the 

victim’s position as owner of the company led the other workers to defer to his 

judgement, even though their own safety was at stake.

Workers should be encouraged by company leadership to report hazards, and feel that 

their concerns will be promptly addressed. The other workers on the project may have 
11

been uncomfortable asserting themselves about safety issues because the victim was 

the owner of the company. Company leadership should follow all company safety 

protocols and procedures and, ensure that employees feel comfortable raising safety 

concerns on projects led by company owners or management.

REFERENCES

1. Weather Underground. Weather History for KKLS – June 2015

www.wunderground.com/history

 

2. U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

[OSHA]. (2002). Job Hazard Analysis Guide. Publication number: OSHA 3071

https://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3071.html Accessed August 10, 2016.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report was reviewed by stakeholders from labor and business communities and various 

Washington State and Federal worker safety agencies. Though we are unable to acknowledge 

specific individuals for their contributions to this report, we would like to recognize the following 

for their help and support of the FACE mission and objectives: 

• The Employer involved in the incident

• Safety & Health Assessment & Research for Prevention (SHARP)

• Division of Occupation Safety and Health (DOSH) 

• Federal FACE Program Management (NIOSH) 

INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION 

Todd Schoonover has a PhD in Industrial Hygiene from the University of Illinois at Chicago. He 

is a Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH) and Certified Safety Professional (CSP). Todd is 

currently the Principal Investigator for the WA FACE program. 

Randy Clark has a BA from The Evergreen State College. He is a Safety and Health Specialist 

with the WA FACE program. 

Christina Rappin has a BA/BS from The Evergreen State College. She is a Research 

Investigator with the WA FACE program. 

WASHINGTON STATE FACE PROGRAM INFORMATION 

The Washington State Fatality Assessment and Control (WA FACE) program is one of many 

workplace health and safety programs administered by the Washington State Department of 

Labor & Industries’ Safety & Health & Research for Prevention (SHARP) program. Under a 

cooperative agreement with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH 

grant# 2U60OH008487-11), WA FACE collects information on occupational fatalities in WA 
12

State and targets specific types of fatalities for evaluation. WA FACE investigators evaluate 

information from multiple sources. Findings are summarized in narrative reports that include 

recommendations for preventing similar events in the future. These recommendations are 

distributed to employers, workers, and other organizations interested in promoting workplace 

safety. NIOSH-funded, state-based FACE programs include: California, Kentucky, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Washington. WA FACE does not determine 

fault or legal liability associated with a fatal incident. Names of employers, victims and/or 

witnesses are not included in written investigative reports or other databases to protect the 

confidentiality of those who voluntarily participate in the program. 

Additional information regarding the WA FACE program can be obtained from: 

Washington State FACE Program 

www.lni.wa.gov/safety/research/face/

PO Box 44330 

Olympia, WA 98504-4330 

1-888-667-4277
EBWWorkPermit-Rev2.doc

10/15/15

 Appendix A

Ecology Block Wall - Work Permit 

Start Date: Start Time: Estimated End Date: 

Work Description: (describe the scope of work)

location

Block Height (check one) Ground Condition (check one)

1 2 3 4 5 Asphalt Gravel Dirt Sand

Personal Protective Equipment (check all that apply) I

Tools & Equipment (list below)

Hard Hat Safety Glasses

Boots High Visibility

Clothing

Hearing Protection Fall Protection

Dust Masks

Means for restricting unauthorized access : Only allow employees listed on the permit in the work zone.

Hazard Assessment (list all possible hazards associated with this project)

1

2

3

4

Emergency Response Information: In the event of an emergency call 911. Then notify supervision & safety coordinator
EBWWorkPermit-Rev2.doc

10/15/15

Authorized Employees

Employee Name Date (Initials)

Permit approved by the following "Certified" personnel:

"I have reviewed the proposed EBW work permit and agree that all EBW policies & procedures have properly been addressed".

Name: Title: Date: Initials: 

Name: Title: Date: Initials: 

 

Project inspected by the following "Certified" personnel:

"I have reviewed the final EBW project and agree that it meets or exceeds safety requirements ."

Name: Title: Date: Initials: 

Name: Title: Date: Initials: 

Original Copy -Permit is to be turned into the Safety Coordinator.

Job Site Copy -A copy of the permit is to be kept at job site for the duration of the project.

Return to the safety coordinator when the job is completed. 

Amendment to Work Permit (list any changes to the scope of work} Date (Initials)