Crane Safety Issues

It is apparent to me that ENR should qualify their reporters as well as we do our operators. There are many facts that are incorrect in the article "An Accident in Florida Shows a Break in the Decision Chain". Having 39 years of experience with cranes and serving as a commissioner and on the board of directors of NCCCO, my company has some knowledge of crane safety.

It is inexcusable that your reporter states that Kelley Equipment could not be reached for comment. We have 24-hour phone service. It is amazing that the only person reached was a billboard lawyer.

It is true that our insurance company agreed to a settlement, but it was not by our choice. It was felt by the insurance company, against our wishes, that this was the most economical route to take. The employee who claimed injury was back to work in three days after the incident and at the time of the incident refused to take the drug test that our safety people requested.

Both our service manager and area manager told the operator not to operate the crane with a penny in the bypass switch. Why he did, we do not know. Our operators are told they are the captain of the ship and should feel no pressure to do anything unsafe or outside the load chart. Perhaps we should teach more common sense in our schools.

Speaking to the comments in your editorial "A Penny's Worth of Safety Is Never Safe Enough": Had you contacted us, you wouldn't have been so shocked, as you inaccurately wrote in implying that we didn't qualify the operator. The operator in question was prequalified with 40 years of crane experience, NCCCO-certified and had worked for us previously in a similar capacity. The union hall also qualified him on that particular crane when we requested a replacement operator.

ROBERT P. STEINER
President, Kelley Equipment Co. of Florida Inc.
Clearwater, Fla.

The  article about the crane accident where a penny was used to override the limit bypass switch contains some interesting opinions. While the opinions offered place responsibility mostly on the crane operator and some on the contractor, it is my belief that the root-cause analysis should include OSHA, employers, crane operators, contractors, safety people and the insurance industry.  I base these beliefs on 36 years in the safety profession.

OSHA has set minimum crane safety regulations based on outdated ASME standards. OSHA compliance officers generally do not understand how a crane should be properly set up, load-chart requirements or manufacturer's recommendations. OSHA needs to train their compliance officers better and provide them with updated training.

Employers (crane owners and contractors) want to optimize the use of cranes.  This occasionally involves asking the crane operator to make a lift that is not safe. Operators have "always done it this way" because most people do not know how a crane should be safely operated. Too often, I have seen merit-shop and union crane operators set up cranes improperly or make improper lifts because they have not had problems in the past.

Insurance companies should place more emphasis on evaluating the underwriting of a company that owns or uses cranes and determining if the crane operators are properly trained and if the crane company has an effective safety program.

J. ROBERT HARRELL
President, Safety Management Services
Clearwater, Fla.