Share This Page

Wilmerding man killed in industrial accident in Hempfield

| Monday, Feb. 4, 2013, 12:16 p.m.
Tribune-Review
The body of a Wilmerding man who died in an industrial accident at Plum Corp. in Hempfield Township is removed by the Westmoreland County coroner's office on Feb. 4, 2013. Sean Stipp | Tribune-Review

A worker was killed on Monday morning in an industrial accident at a Hempfield Township manufacturing plant.

State police in Greensburg identified the worker as Richard J. Licina Jr., 60, of Wilmerding.

Trooper James Simpson reported the accident occurred before 9:30 a.m. at Plum Corp., which produces industrial and commercial siding products. Plum Corp. is located in the Greensburg-Hempfield Business Park on Woodward Drive Extension.

Licina, who had worked at the company for 30 years, was moving a large steel coil using a 15-ton overhead crane, Simpson said.

As the 10,000-pound coil began to lift, it unexpectedly caused a separate 5,000-pound coil to shift out of position, striking Licina in the chest and pinning him against other stacks of coils, Simpson said.

Police said Licina was found pinned between the large coils.

Licina was pronounced dead at the scene about 10:45 a.m., according to the Westmoreland County Coroner's Office.

He died of injuries to the chest, the coroner's office said.

State police and officials from the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration are investigating.

Officials from Plum Corp. did not return a call for comment.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.