There was a major accident this afternoon in the Coker unit turnaround at the LyondellBasell refinery in Houston, Texas. One of the largest mobile cranes in the world tipped over and there are four confirmed dead and seven injured so far. Two folks were flown out by helicopter and several were taken out by ambulance. I have a strong feeling that the death toll will increase because rumors are circulating that several more bodies may be trapped under the wreckage. All of the dead and injured are contractors working for either Deep South crane or other contract companies hired for the turnaround. Please keep these folks and their families in your thoughts and prayers.
4 dead in crane accident in Houston turnaround
- Thread starter Lyondellic
- Start date
- Status
I heard that on the radio today. So many cranes going down latey....my prayers for the relatives and survivors.
Human curiosity makes me wonder about the root cause.
Human curiosity makes me wonder about the root cause.
Industrial fatalities are really hard for families. Dad goes off to work, and never comes home. My thoughts are with them.
Pablo, those were my thoughts. On our sites there has been one guy crushed (not fatal) during a lift with a gantry crane, and a mobile topple in the last couple of years. Can't go into specifics, but there was a common cause.
Pablo, those were my thoughts. On our sites there has been one guy crushed (not fatal) during a lift with a gantry crane, and a mobile topple in the last couple of years. Can't go into specifics, but there was a common cause.
This is horrible. I've worked with Deep South guys as well as Starcon, CTS and many others. This is a true tragedy. We just recently had a giant mobile crane nearly that size on site for a turnaround and this really hits home for me.
Take care of your guys, God bless.
Take care of your guys, God bless.
Working around or with any kind of a machine is risky.
Gulf Coast refineries have always been into the ' cowboy ' culture of running a refinery ! Get the job done fast and don't worry about the risks ! Look at the refinery accidents over the last fifty or sixty years and the Gulf Coast has way more than their share !
Originally Posted By: bruno
Gulf Coast refineries have always been into the ' cowboy ' culture of running a refinery ! Get the job done fast and don't worry about the risks ! Look at the refinery accidents over the last fifty or sixty years and the Gulf Coast has way more than their share !
You know I tried really hard not to respond to this. I have worked at the various plants along the Houston Ship Channel for 16+ years now. I have worked in maintenance, operations and operations supervision. Obviously I still work in the industry and many close friends, more like extended family, were working at this Coker unit when the crane toppled. My tag name, in case you haven't noticed, was not selected at random.
The "cowboy" culture as you have chosen to call it had nothing to do with what took place here. I think that you may have watched Urban Cowboy one too many times. It took well over a month just to get the components on-site and assemble this crane up to the point that it failed. We put safety first and all want to live long enough to make a living, raise our kids and retire one day. We do not go to work each day saying "Gee, I wonder what risks that I can take to save the company a few dollars". I am the first to admit that accidents happen. Just like any other industry, we learn from incidents like this and adjust our practices and policies to prevent something similar from happening in the future.
What company in their right mind would spend several hundred million dollars to design and build a process unit and then cut corners to rush through a turnaround? In an oil refinery, turnarounds are planned years in advance and coordination between all of the various units is paramount. Even if one unit completes its turnaround several days early, what good does that do if the unit that supplies it with feed is still down? It is way too early to speculate what caused this horrible accident to happen, but after a through investigation I am sure that it will boil down to human error and/or mechanical failure.
Many of my friends saw some horrible things yesterday. I have gone through what they are currently going through now. It takes a while to "get right" and can lead to PTSD if they don't talk to someone about what they saw and felt. I kept seeing the same "movie" in my head for months until I was able to talk about how what I had seen and felt with close friends and family. This finally allowed me to mentally process what had taken place.
Four other contract workers will not get to go home ever again. Again, please keep those affected by this in your thoughts and prayers.....
Gulf Coast refineries have always been into the ' cowboy ' culture of running a refinery ! Get the job done fast and don't worry about the risks ! Look at the refinery accidents over the last fifty or sixty years and the Gulf Coast has way more than their share !
You know I tried really hard not to respond to this. I have worked at the various plants along the Houston Ship Channel for 16+ years now. I have worked in maintenance, operations and operations supervision. Obviously I still work in the industry and many close friends, more like extended family, were working at this Coker unit when the crane toppled. My tag name, in case you haven't noticed, was not selected at random.
The "cowboy" culture as you have chosen to call it had nothing to do with what took place here. I think that you may have watched Urban Cowboy one too many times. It took well over a month just to get the components on-site and assemble this crane up to the point that it failed. We put safety first and all want to live long enough to make a living, raise our kids and retire one day. We do not go to work each day saying "Gee, I wonder what risks that I can take to save the company a few dollars". I am the first to admit that accidents happen. Just like any other industry, we learn from incidents like this and adjust our practices and policies to prevent something similar from happening in the future.
What company in their right mind would spend several hundred million dollars to design and build a process unit and then cut corners to rush through a turnaround? In an oil refinery, turnarounds are planned years in advance and coordination between all of the various units is paramount. Even if one unit completes its turnaround several days early, what good does that do if the unit that supplies it with feed is still down? It is way too early to speculate what caused this horrible accident to happen, but after a through investigation I am sure that it will boil down to human error and/or mechanical failure.
Many of my friends saw some horrible things yesterday. I have gone through what they are currently going through now. It takes a while to "get right" and can lead to PTSD if they don't talk to someone about what they saw and felt. I kept seeing the same "movie" in my head for months until I was able to talk about how what I had seen and felt with close friends and family. This finally allowed me to mentally process what had taken place.
Four other contract workers will not get to go home ever again. Again, please keep those affected by this in your thoughts and prayers.....
As a Safety professional in the field this really hits home for me. I no longer work in Texas refineries and try to avoid it due to what I perceive as a low value on human life(personal not professional opinion).
First and foremost this is not the fault of the workers. I must question the common practice of putting the central break area in the middle of the work area in the swing radius of a crane. The crane collapse is the least of worries, this is in an operating refinery. If that crane had come down on a live unit the death toll and consequence would have been far worse.
I question the planning. A common practice in Turnarounds in Texas( I worked safety in these areas for 5 years before moving to upstream businesses) is multiple simultaneous operations that can negatively effect each other. This is done in the name of reducing the time that the units are out of production. Acceptance of these simultaneous operations has resulted in a less safe work place. Couple this with the transient workforce that makes up the labor pool for these Turnaround activities and you have a formula for incidents to occur.
If this crane had been performing a lift I am certain that the areas would have been cleared of workers. This brings into question what kind of operations was the crane performing, was the permitting authority (the plant) aware? Etc.
I do not have enough facts to go much further but I do have alot of questions and it sickens me that people continue to lose there lives for the sake of compressing work activity into limited areas.
In my personal experience there is alot of talk about safety in Texas refineries but the managements actions speak loudly about the values and priorities.
The natural response will be "that is how we have always done Turnarounds"... and that certainly does not justify the simops practice.
The refinery will try to absolve itself if it is found that the crane failed due to a mechanical or assembly malfunction. But the Refinery is responsible, legally and morally, for providing a safe workplace that does not expose workers to unnecessary risk.
My heart goes out to the families and the injured. Until the industrial culture along the gulf coast takes the cost of human life more seriously I hope that they can be sued to the point of financial duress.
First and foremost this is not the fault of the workers. I must question the common practice of putting the central break area in the middle of the work area in the swing radius of a crane. The crane collapse is the least of worries, this is in an operating refinery. If that crane had come down on a live unit the death toll and consequence would have been far worse.
I question the planning. A common practice in Turnarounds in Texas( I worked safety in these areas for 5 years before moving to upstream businesses) is multiple simultaneous operations that can negatively effect each other. This is done in the name of reducing the time that the units are out of production. Acceptance of these simultaneous operations has resulted in a less safe work place. Couple this with the transient workforce that makes up the labor pool for these Turnaround activities and you have a formula for incidents to occur.
If this crane had been performing a lift I am certain that the areas would have been cleared of workers. This brings into question what kind of operations was the crane performing, was the permitting authority (the plant) aware? Etc.
I do not have enough facts to go much further but I do have alot of questions and it sickens me that people continue to lose there lives for the sake of compressing work activity into limited areas.
In my personal experience there is alot of talk about safety in Texas refineries but the managements actions speak loudly about the values and priorities.
The natural response will be "that is how we have always done Turnarounds"... and that certainly does not justify the simops practice.
The refinery will try to absolve itself if it is found that the crane failed due to a mechanical or assembly malfunction. But the Refinery is responsible, legally and morally, for providing a safe workplace that does not expose workers to unnecessary risk.
My heart goes out to the families and the injured. Until the industrial culture along the gulf coast takes the cost of human life more seriously I hope that they can be sued to the point of financial duress.
Quote:
The refinery will try to absolve itself if it is found that the crane failed due to a mechanical or assembly malfunction. But the Refinery is responsible, legally and morally, for providing a safe workplace that does not expose workers to unnecessary risk.
The crane and it's crew were no doubt provided for by contractors in the lifting business. Why should the refinery be held responsible for something done by an independent contractor?
Should a roofer be able to sue you if he falls off the roof and gets hurt because you didn't provide a soft landing spot? As Steve said, this is dangerous work and everyone around machines like this had better understand that.
The refinery will try to absolve itself if it is found that the crane failed due to a mechanical or assembly malfunction. But the Refinery is responsible, legally and morally, for providing a safe workplace that does not expose workers to unnecessary risk.
The crane and it's crew were no doubt provided for by contractors in the lifting business. Why should the refinery be held responsible for something done by an independent contractor?
Should a roofer be able to sue you if he falls off the roof and gets hurt because you didn't provide a soft landing spot? As Steve said, this is dangerous work and everyone around machines like this had better understand that.
The refinery did not have control of work within its facility.
The refinery had control(it is supposed to provide a safe work environment) of the timing and placement of its multitude of employees (contractors are employees). By allowing the actions of one contractor to effect the life of another the refinery failed to control the work within its area. Whatever the root cause of the crane failure there should never have been personnel in potential harms way. The primary causal factor to all injuries and deaths will fall upon the refinery for not controlling the work and placement of workers in its area of control.
"As Steve said, this is dangerous work and everyone around machines like this had better understand that."
I certainly disagree with this.
What the statement expresses is an acceptance of risk to workers shrugging off an occupation as "dangerous" No one has the right to accept this risk for others. The fact is that occupations around highly hazardous processes such as refining are some of the most intensively controlled with incident rates much lower than general industry or general construction.
The fact is that some activity was occurring with that crane and people were allowed to be in the danger zone. Placement of workers and structures intended for any kind of occupancy in this area is a demonstration that the refinery was not in control of the work within the facility.
More so the refinery selected each and every contractor and authorized each one to proceed with work on the facility. The buck stops with the refinery management.
Immediate causal factors will come out and they certainly will be mechanical in nature in relation to the crane. There is no doubt the crane broke, that evedence is easy to see. But there is a System cause as well, much further up the chain that broke before this crane broke. That system cause is why people died, if the system would have operated correctly people would never have been positioned in a way that they would be impacted by this crane.
(Note to the roofer analogy-- unless you assured through a contract that the roofer was self insured and bonded your homeowners insurance would end up picking up the roofers losses. So yes you would get sued, and yes you would lose f you didn't have written assurances) You could potentially be liable for more if you were aware of a hazard and did not inform the contractor and an employee fell through the roof for example and it became apparent that you were aware of the hazard.
People are not disposable.
The refinery had control(it is supposed to provide a safe work environment) of the timing and placement of its multitude of employees (contractors are employees). By allowing the actions of one contractor to effect the life of another the refinery failed to control the work within its area. Whatever the root cause of the crane failure there should never have been personnel in potential harms way. The primary causal factor to all injuries and deaths will fall upon the refinery for not controlling the work and placement of workers in its area of control.
"As Steve said, this is dangerous work and everyone around machines like this had better understand that."
I certainly disagree with this.
What the statement expresses is an acceptance of risk to workers shrugging off an occupation as "dangerous" No one has the right to accept this risk for others. The fact is that occupations around highly hazardous processes such as refining are some of the most intensively controlled with incident rates much lower than general industry or general construction.
The fact is that some activity was occurring with that crane and people were allowed to be in the danger zone. Placement of workers and structures intended for any kind of occupancy in this area is a demonstration that the refinery was not in control of the work within the facility.
More so the refinery selected each and every contractor and authorized each one to proceed with work on the facility. The buck stops with the refinery management.
Immediate causal factors will come out and they certainly will be mechanical in nature in relation to the crane. There is no doubt the crane broke, that evedence is easy to see. But there is a System cause as well, much further up the chain that broke before this crane broke. That system cause is why people died, if the system would have operated correctly people would never have been positioned in a way that they would be impacted by this crane.
(Note to the roofer analogy-- unless you assured through a contract that the roofer was self insured and bonded your homeowners insurance would end up picking up the roofers losses. So yes you would get sued, and yes you would lose f you didn't have written assurances) You could potentially be liable for more if you were aware of a hazard and did not inform the contractor and an employee fell through the roof for example and it became apparent that you were aware of the hazard.
People are not disposable.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
The crane and it's crew were no doubt provided for by contractors in the lifting business. Why should the refinery be held responsible for something done by an independent contractor?
Tempest, during the big periods of outsourcing that occurred over the last 20 years, some executive types tried the "it's not me, they are a contractor" approach to get out of court. It sort of worked in the early days, and was undoubtedly one of the reasons for outsourcing particularly "risky" jobs, like working with insulation materials and building scaffolds.
In 2000, a new act Occupational Health and Safety Act was introduced (down here), which puts the onus of providing a safe place of work fairly and squarely on the "Controller" of the site.
Even if the person injured is a trespasser, the controller must be able to demonstrate that they did everything "reasonable" to prevent injury.
As a person who runs about $5M of outsourced contracts per year, I have an absolute duty to review all of my contractor's safety systems, work methods, lifting reviews, confined space management...if I demonstrate that I have done those things, I'm clean in an investigation. If I don't have "control" of my Contractors, then I'm in big trouble.
The crane and it's crew were no doubt provided for by contractors in the lifting business. Why should the refinery be held responsible for something done by an independent contractor?
Tempest, during the big periods of outsourcing that occurred over the last 20 years, some executive types tried the "it's not me, they are a contractor" approach to get out of court. It sort of worked in the early days, and was undoubtedly one of the reasons for outsourcing particularly "risky" jobs, like working with insulation materials and building scaffolds.
In 2000, a new act Occupational Health and Safety Act was introduced (down here), which puts the onus of providing a safe place of work fairly and squarely on the "Controller" of the site.
Even if the person injured is a trespasser, the controller must be able to demonstrate that they did everything "reasonable" to prevent injury.
As a person who runs about $5M of outsourced contracts per year, I have an absolute duty to review all of my contractor's safety systems, work methods, lifting reviews, confined space management...if I demonstrate that I have done those things, I'm clean in an investigation. If I don't have "control" of my Contractors, then I'm in big trouble.
Quote:
Even if the person injured is a trespasser, the controller must be able to demonstrate that they did everything "reasonable" to prevent injury.
This is asinine. Yes, we have the same junk laws here as armed intruders are able to sue homeowners for slicing their arms on the glass they just broke or whatever.
Doesn't make it proper, moral, or just. Freeking lawyers...
Quote:
What the statement expresses is an acceptance of risk to workers shrugging off an occupation as "dangerous" No one has the right to accept this risk for others.
I never said people were disposable.
If the refinery purposely created an unsafe situation, then they should pay. However, refinery management are not crane operators and should not be held responsible for whatever incompetence or lack of maintenance may be in play by a licensed and bonded contractor. I don't know if there was a General Contractor on site.
And yes, people should have to absorb some of the risk of their profession as it is perfectly clear that being around heavy machinery is inherently more dangerous than working in an office. May not be the case legally, but it should be.
And yes, I have worked around and with dangerous machines and the place I work at currently has plenty of meat munchers on the floor. EVERY accident I have seen could easily be attributed to operator error.
Even if the person injured is a trespasser, the controller must be able to demonstrate that they did everything "reasonable" to prevent injury.
This is asinine. Yes, we have the same junk laws here as armed intruders are able to sue homeowners for slicing their arms on the glass they just broke or whatever.
Quote:
What the statement expresses is an acceptance of risk to workers shrugging off an occupation as "dangerous" No one has the right to accept this risk for others.
I never said people were disposable.
And yes, people should have to absorb some of the risk of their profession as it is perfectly clear that being around heavy machinery is inherently more dangerous than working in an office. May not be the case legally, but it should be.
And yes, I have worked around and with dangerous machines and the place I work at currently has plenty of meat munchers on the floor. EVERY accident I have seen could easily be attributed to operator error.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
EVERY accident I have seen could easily be attributed to operator error.
These things can typically be engineered out or a procedure employed to make them nearly impossible to occur. You also don't do things like establish a piece rate and then wonder why some safety systems are bypassed or defeated that result in injury.
EVERY accident I have seen could easily be attributed to operator error.
These things can typically be engineered out or a procedure employed to make them nearly impossible to occur. You also don't do things like establish a piece rate and then wonder why some safety systems are bypassed or defeated that result in injury.
"EVERY accident I have seen could easily be attributed to operator error."
You are not digging deep enough and are stopping your investigation of where the error occurred entirely too soon. That oversimplification will not prevent the incident from recurring.
Gary Allan is correct . Engineering and administrative controls can clear personnel form the known hazard through distance from the hazard and scheduling to avoid human and hazard interface.
The contract structures and the stacking of too many man hours into too little time and space is also a major administrative (planning) error. When planning the turnaround the question should be. "How long will it take to accomplish our goals safely?" No doubt this question was not asked, the planners are told. " You have a 10 day window to accomplish all this work"
This is how the situation is usually set up in these Refinery Turnaround situations. What are the expectations being set up here? Will those who stop unsafe work and cause the schedule to slip be supported or will they not be?
You are not digging deep enough and are stopping your investigation of where the error occurred entirely too soon. That oversimplification will not prevent the incident from recurring.
Gary Allan is correct . Engineering and administrative controls can clear personnel form the known hazard through distance from the hazard and scheduling to avoid human and hazard interface.
The contract structures and the stacking of too many man hours into too little time and space is also a major administrative (planning) error. When planning the turnaround the question should be. "How long will it take to accomplish our goals safely?" No doubt this question was not asked, the planners are told. " You have a 10 day window to accomplish all this work"
This is how the situation is usually set up in these Refinery Turnaround situations. What are the expectations being set up here? Will those who stop unsafe work and cause the schedule to slip be supported or will they not be?
Last edited:
Again machines are dangerous and stuff happens for example airline pilots are well trained, the Maintenance people are trained and licensed but planes crash and there is always someone to blame for some reason.
A few comments and then I will leave this one alone:
First, the process unit where this accident occurred was built in the late 1960's. Like a lot of process units built back then, space was apparently not high on the priority list during the design phase. I do not know why this seems to be the case in many of the older process units, but it is what it is. Access to areas to perform various tasks is is controlled in several manners, the most common are the coordination of work during the planning phase and the operations permitting process. For example, company "A" removes and replaces a section of process line, then company "B" gets to pull a control valve that is located under the line. This is challenging in congested process units, but operations does not simply turn the contractors loose to do whatever they want wherever they want. Units are divided into sections during turnarounds and a dedicated group of operators controls the work in each area. Permits to perform work are issued by a single point of contact from each area to prevent work from overlapping. Miles of barricade tape is used to prevent access while overhead work, or work requiring restricted access is in progress.
Second, obviously no one would have been allowed to be standing in harms way during a lift. The investigation will determine why the crane that failed had its engine running, but I am sure that most here realize that diesel engines are often left idling. Maybe the crane operator simply had the engine running to allow the crane cab's air conditioner to operate so that he could keep the cab cool. The company spokesman stated that no lifts were scheduled until next week, but with a crane of this this size I am sure that it is perfectly normal to check system pressures, temperatures and other parameters well in advance of actual use. Something as simple as inspecting the crane's cables for wear would require the engine to be running I would think. This crane is worth millions of dollars and is not operated by Billy Bob Redneck while he sits in the cab drinking a beer and smoking a cigarette.
Third, clearly the videos show that crane fell away from the process unit. During a turnaround, the areas around large cranes are not teaming with folks and access is limited. Cranes sound their horns before performing a lift as well to make sure that everyone is aware of what is about to happen. As for the location of the crane, given the nature of the task I am not sure there was another option. It looks like the crane was set up at a location appropriate for the task that it was to perform.
After the BP explosion all of the plants along the Gulf Coast took a long hard look at the placement of temporary buildings. Most plants will not allow temporary buildings within a few hundred feet of process units anymore, even during normal operations. Is is also common practice to clear non-essential personnel from units when units are started up. I am sure that the placement of the lunch tent will get the scrutiny that it deserves. In the end I feel that that the investigation will recommend moving tents and other free-issue trailers even further away when when large cranes are to be used. Again, the industry will adjust its policies and practices to prevent a similar incident from happening in the future.
Finally, I have worked with folks from Deep South and other crane companies for years. There are a lot of rules in place to prevent lifts during periods of high wind, to clear areas of personnel during lifts and to have an approved lift plan when making lifts over live equipment. I am sure that this incident will bring calls for additional oversight, perhaps rightfully so, but in the end I always got the impression that the guys that operate these large cranes were extremely competent and most had traveled all over the country, even the world, to perform lifts.
Off my soapbox and done.....over & out.
First, the process unit where this accident occurred was built in the late 1960's. Like a lot of process units built back then, space was apparently not high on the priority list during the design phase. I do not know why this seems to be the case in many of the older process units, but it is what it is. Access to areas to perform various tasks is is controlled in several manners, the most common are the coordination of work during the planning phase and the operations permitting process. For example, company "A" removes and replaces a section of process line, then company "B" gets to pull a control valve that is located under the line. This is challenging in congested process units, but operations does not simply turn the contractors loose to do whatever they want wherever they want. Units are divided into sections during turnarounds and a dedicated group of operators controls the work in each area. Permits to perform work are issued by a single point of contact from each area to prevent work from overlapping. Miles of barricade tape is used to prevent access while overhead work, or work requiring restricted access is in progress.
Second, obviously no one would have been allowed to be standing in harms way during a lift. The investigation will determine why the crane that failed had its engine running, but I am sure that most here realize that diesel engines are often left idling. Maybe the crane operator simply had the engine running to allow the crane cab's air conditioner to operate so that he could keep the cab cool. The company spokesman stated that no lifts were scheduled until next week, but with a crane of this this size I am sure that it is perfectly normal to check system pressures, temperatures and other parameters well in advance of actual use. Something as simple as inspecting the crane's cables for wear would require the engine to be running I would think. This crane is worth millions of dollars and is not operated by Billy Bob Redneck while he sits in the cab drinking a beer and smoking a cigarette.
Third, clearly the videos show that crane fell away from the process unit. During a turnaround, the areas around large cranes are not teaming with folks and access is limited. Cranes sound their horns before performing a lift as well to make sure that everyone is aware of what is about to happen. As for the location of the crane, given the nature of the task I am not sure there was another option. It looks like the crane was set up at a location appropriate for the task that it was to perform.
After the BP explosion all of the plants along the Gulf Coast took a long hard look at the placement of temporary buildings. Most plants will not allow temporary buildings within a few hundred feet of process units anymore, even during normal operations. Is is also common practice to clear non-essential personnel from units when units are started up. I am sure that the placement of the lunch tent will get the scrutiny that it deserves. In the end I feel that that the investigation will recommend moving tents and other free-issue trailers even further away when when large cranes are to be used. Again, the industry will adjust its policies and practices to prevent a similar incident from happening in the future.
Finally, I have worked with folks from Deep South and other crane companies for years. There are a lot of rules in place to prevent lifts during periods of high wind, to clear areas of personnel during lifts and to have an approved lift plan when making lifts over live equipment. I am sure that this incident will bring calls for additional oversight, perhaps rightfully so, but in the end I always got the impression that the guys that operate these large cranes were extremely competent and most had traveled all over the country, even the world, to perform lifts.
Off my soapbox and done.....over & out.
Last edited:
'It is way too early to speculate what caused this horrible accident to happen, but after a through investigation I am sure that it will boil down to human error and/or mechanical failure.'
Human error - YES - the fault of management that gives lip service to safety as long as the job gets done quickly ! I was part of investigations where the old song was
' operator error ' ! Funny thing though when the accidents were really examined it came down to lack of commitment from management !
Human error - YES - the fault of management that gives lip service to safety as long as the job gets done quickly ! I was part of investigations where the old song was
' operator error ' ! Funny thing though when the accidents were really examined it came down to lack of commitment from management !
Originally Posted By: bruno
'It is way too early to speculate what caused this horrible accident to happen, but after a through investigation I am sure that it will boil down to human error and/or mechanical failure.'
Human error - YES - the fault of management that gives lip service to safety as long as the job gets done quickly ! I was part of investigations where the old song was
' operator error ' ! Funny thing though when the accidents were really examined it came down to lack of commitment from management !
Have you not been following the news coverage, or reading this thread? The crane that failed was not scheduled to perform a lift for at least one week. What was the rush, where was the need to hurry?
How can you make the blanket statement that this accident was management's fault when the root cause has not even been identified yet? Based on your comments, are you saying that management from the the crane company, management from the affected process unit, site and corporate level management all gave lip service to safety? That doesn't even make sense.
Let the investigation run its course before you start making generalized, unsubstantiated statements that have no basis in actual fact.....or pass around whatever it is you're smoking.
'It is way too early to speculate what caused this horrible accident to happen, but after a through investigation I am sure that it will boil down to human error and/or mechanical failure.'
Human error - YES - the fault of management that gives lip service to safety as long as the job gets done quickly ! I was part of investigations where the old song was
' operator error ' ! Funny thing though when the accidents were really examined it came down to lack of commitment from management !
Have you not been following the news coverage, or reading this thread? The crane that failed was not scheduled to perform a lift for at least one week. What was the rush, where was the need to hurry?
How can you make the blanket statement that this accident was management's fault when the root cause has not even been identified yet? Based on your comments, are you saying that management from the the crane company, management from the affected process unit, site and corporate level management all gave lip service to safety? That doesn't even make sense.
Let the investigation run its course before you start making generalized, unsubstantiated statements that have no basis in actual fact.....or pass around whatever it is you're smoking.
I must have hit a sore spot !
My opinion is based on long term experience in the refining business - and my low opinion of the Gulf Coast refineries stands !
My opinion is based on long term experience in the refining business - and my low opinion of the Gulf Coast refineries stands !
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Working around or with any kind of a machine is risky.
Not to mention, "We all will die sooner or later." (Steve S)
Working around or with any kind of a machine is risky.
Not to mention, "We all will die sooner or later." (Steve S)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
