I ran across an article today of a settlement reached with the family of Matthew Ammon, a Microsoft attorney, who was killed in 2006 when a tower crane from an adjacent construction site crashed through his apartment. Having not heard of this incident previously, I started reading a bit more into it.
The reports show that the crane sat on a very unconventional foundation that was really not a foundation at all. The crane sat on a steel frame when cranes typically are supported by a foundation of concrete. This very unusual set up was designed by a local structural engineering firm and deemed to be safe by the engineering firm as well as the general contractor on the project.
A settlement was reached yesterday after an interesting admission of some responsibility by the designer of the crane support system one day before the trial was slated to begin. The engineering firm was fined $10,000. This seems a little light to me.
The most interesting part about this story however, was the fact that there were numerous reports of noticeable fatigue of the crane system. There were reports of the tower of the crane leaning upwards of three feet when the allowable lean was less than six inches.
So the question, of course, is if there were noticeable signs of stress on this system, why was a correction not performed? Ron Slater, a former construction foreman for the general contractor presented a possible reason for a construction company not being quick to deliver information about a potential hazard to a Seattle publication shortly after the incident.
"They preach a lot about safety but when you open your mouth too much, all of a sudden you become the problem," said Slater.
Slater also said that he has been blackballed from all construction supervisor jobs in the area due to whistle-blowing on un-safe practices earlier in his career and has since been able to find work only as an equipment operator.
While Slater's accusation of what could have happened may or may not have any true validity, I'll be one to attest that it is certainly possible. To bring a potentially poor crane foundation to the attention of the owner or engineer would at least cause minor delays, and at most cause severe financial impact to the project by requiring a new foundation to be designed and installed putting the crane temporarily out of operation.
I hope that this situation could not have been as easily prevented as Ron Slater is suggesting, but since this accident there have been several similar crane accidents in the US and some with more catastrophic outcomes.
We can add regulation and checklists all we want (and we are), but we also have to think about changing the culture on construction job sites to one that will not sacrifice safety or potential hazards just to save a buck. While laws and penalties are being enacted and more thoroughly enforced, I believe progress needs to be substantially supplemented by the leadership within construction organizations.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment