| Home | About General Crane | Bankruptcy | Customers | Litigation Database | Finances | Property | Safety | Area Standards | For Workers | Press Releases | Search |
Contact Us
|
|
*Click the Inspection number for the full report Inspection of General Crane USA Tower Crane at Marlins Stadium Project
During the course of their investigation, CSHOs observed that a red tag labeled “DO NOT OPERATE THIS CRANE” was posted by Gulfstream Crane on the tower crane in question. A Gulfstream Crane representative provided CSHOs with an inspection report conducted on November 16, 2009 by PIC Crane Safety Services, LLC. The report indicated deficiencies (listed in detail on the OSHA inspection report) on the body of the crane, and included recommendations for repairs prior to operation. Other third-party inspectors were also brought in to examine the tower crane. One of the inspectors cited structural problems with pins at the tower crane base:
Gulfstream provided CSHOs with a letter from crane manufacturer Linden Comansa America authorizing Gulfstream Crane to fix or replace any structural components of the Linden Comansa tower cranes. On December 14, 2009 CSHOs returned to the site to find the tower crane in operation. The employer provided a copy of the certification from an additional inspector, and a copy of the certificate of inspection of the crane pins referenced in the initial complaint. A closing conference was held on the same day. OSHA could not establish any “violative condition” during the investigation, and did not recommend citations to the employer. General Crane USA Cited For Failing to Properly Record Twelve Workplace Injuries On September 8, 2009 Compliance Safety and Health Officers (CSHO) requested OSHA 300/300A forms from General Crane USA from 2004 through 2009. After receiving the requested forms on September 11, 2009, CSHOs checked the forms against the workers compensation database and found five cases where employees had injuries that were not recorded in OSHA 300 logs for their respective year. Additionally, seven injury reports filed by General Crane USA were not completed in detail, missing the days away and/or restricted time for injuries that occurred. The General Crane employee responsible for recordkeeping blamed the error on the different filing system used by her currently and that used by her predecessor. General Crane USA was cited with two violations and faced a $5,000 fine, which was later negotiated down to $3,750. Struck-By Hazards at Job-Site in Bal Harbour
Improper Use of Equipment Leads to Crane Accident
Crane Accident Leaves Employee Seriously Injured
During the course of the subsequent investigation, CSHO’s conducted interviews with both the crane operator and eyewitnesses. All agreed that that high winds had been a factor (Hurricane George passed through South Florida the day before), and employees were attempting to jack the crane in a 25mph crosswind. The 3500 lb. I-beam being lifted was out of control, being blown repeatedly in to the building. In order for the ground man to control it, the employee had to walk or stand under it. In addition, the crane in use was experiencing mechanical problems, not functioning properly and at times not responding to the operator’s controls. After the ground man was forced to walk under the load to untangle a tag line, the I-beam crashed down on top of him. The crane operator quickly acted to retract the I-beam, but not before the ground man suffered puncture wounds to the lungs and severe vertebrae injuries.
CSHO’s stated that management issues contributed to this incident: the crane operator was not given the authority to stop the operation, there is no evidence a daily log book was maintained. The project was behind schedule and there was “pressure to complete the jacking process.” CSHOs concluded that because of the potential for mechanical malfunction, excessive wind, and the use of an untrained ground man, General Crane should be cited for a willful violation, which was later dropped due to technical constraints. General Crane was initially fined $15,000, but reached a settlement of $2,500. More information on this accident is available HERE. Damaged Crane Cable Used to Lift Load On September 18, 2006 CSHOs were assigned to conduct a programmed inspection at a condo building in West Palm Beach. The crawler cranes and tower cranes on-site were operated by General Crane USA. During the walk around inspection, CSHOs observed two employees lifting steel rebar using the tower crane. The CSHO noticed a gap of approximately five inches in the tower cranes cable, and ordered the crane to stop immediately to inspect the cable. After inspection, General Crane indicated that a bad spot had indeed been found, and 120 ft of the cable was cut and replaced. After an initial penalty in the amount of $5,000, General Crane reached an informal settlement of $1,500. General Crane Employee Exposed to 190 Foot Fall Hazard
Hoist Brake Failure and Missing Documents On September 12, 2005, A CSHO was referred to the job site known as “The Residences at the MGM” where a tower crane owned and operated by Republic Towers & Hoist was involved in an accident. The west tower crane (Comansa 21 LC-4oo, SIN 11890) working on Tower #1 experienced a hoist brake failure; as a result, the crane dropped the hook and 500 feet of cable. The Inspector found that at least twice before this crane had experienced a hoist brake failure. Upon further inspection by a Linden Comansa technician, it was revealed that the wrong bolts were used causing damage to the brake disc. The CSHO’s report states that Republic “did not fully implement the manufacturer’s specific requirements for inspection.” In addition to failing to meet manufacturer requirements, Republic was also cited for “willfully refusing to submit records for inspection.” When the inspector requested documents recording inspections, repairs, and tests the representative for Republic Towers and Hoist did not produce them – only later were 2005 documents presented to the inspector. According to the OSHA citation, Republic failed to produce:
Republic Tower and Hoist was initially fined $1,175 but a settlement was reached whereby the serious citation (failing to follow manufacturer’s instructions) was dropped, Republic hired the Comansa technician full-time, and the citation for willingly refusing to submit records was reduced to $200. Injury and Illness Logs Not Properly Certified During a planned comprehensive inspection of the Fountainbleu jobsite in February 2009, an OSHA inspector discovered that some annual injury and illness reports were not certified. At a closing conference Republic Towers & Hoist was asked to present its OSHA injury and illness logs (form 300) for 2005-2008. At this conference it was discovered that Republic did not certify annual injury summaries from 2007 and 2008 until February 18, 2009 – after the initial site inspection. Republic Towers & Hoist was given a Notice of Violation in lieu of a citation.
|
On December 3, 2009 CSHOs responded to safety complaint concerning Gulfstream Crane (aka General Crane USA) at the Marlins stadium construction site. The complaint alleged two separate safety risks involving a tower crane erected on site, but apparently not in use:
On June 8, 2006, Compliance Safety and Health Officers (CSHO’s) witnessed several instances of crane operators employed by General Crane USA, Inc. lifting material directly over employees on the ground. In the first instance, an employee of C.L.W. Concrete Construction was exposed to a struck-by hazard from a load of rebar being lifted and suspended overhead by General Crane USA. In the second instance, two employees were exposed to a struck-by hazard from a concrete bucket being lifted in to position above them by General Crane. In a separate inspection on June 16, CSHO’s witnessed a crane lift a generator over an employee of the general contractor; the crane operator was notified via radio by the general contractor to stop carrying loads of material over employees. General Crane paid a $3,000 fine, negotiated from an initial penalty of $5,000. 
On February 2, 2004, OSHA CSHO’s were notified by the local police of a crane accident in Boca Raton. An employee of Royal Crane, LLC d/b/a Hunter Crane was operating a 175-ton Liebherr crane when it tipped over. After interviews with the crane supervisor, CSHO’s determined that the load being handled was the dolly of the crane where the boom rests while it is transported. The accident occurred when the crane operator positioned the load beyond the maximum allowed radius specified in the crane’s load chart without extending the outriggers of the crane as required by the manufacturer. The manufacturer’s load chart maximum radius was sixteen feet and the calculated radius of the load was 20 feet, thus exceeding the radius by four feet. Due to the improper use of outriggers as specified by the manufacturer, Royal Crane was assigned a fee of $1,125.
On August 19, 2004, CSHO’s responded to a complaint involving General Cranes USA at a site in Hollywood, FL. The shell contractor on site (Formworks, Inc.) had entered in to an agreement with General Cranes USA for crane services. The complaint alleged that the crane was being stressed beyond its limits, the potentiometer reading was too high and the crane was surging. In addition, an employee was struck by an I-beam while the crane was being jacked.
The CSHO’s present state that attempts to assess the crane in question for mechanical issues were at first met with formidable resistance, and were given incomplete and inconsistent accounts of events and statements. CSHO’s noted that they have received documentation from Formworks, Inc that they never received daily reports from General Crane. In addition, the victim had been employed by General Crane for only seven months and had received no formal training.
On March 30, 2007 CSHOs were referred to a jobsite run by KM-Plaza Construction with General Crane USA operating the on-site cranes. During the initial walkaround tour, CSHOs witnessed two employees reaching out for a bundle of cables from a crane at the edge of the east side of the 19th floor; both were standing outside the protected area, and only one was tied off. The general contractor immediately sent the employee home. In addition, railing along the edge was removed to reach a load being delivered by crane. These two citations resulted in a penalty of $8,500, later negotiated to $4,425.