10.10.2008

Bellevue tower crane settlement

The contractor, Lease Crutcher Lewis has reached agreement with the Washington state department of Labor & Industries over citations relating to the tower crane collapse in Bellevue, Seattle in 2006. The state agreed to modify one of the violations, and the contractor agreed not to file any more appeals.
Please register to see all images

An aerial view shows the core and point of failure

The state had found that a flawed engineering design caused the tower crane to collapse in November 2006, killing Matthew Ammon, 31, and severely damaging three buildings.

The foundation of the crane was designed to withstand only 25 percent of the possible forces exerted by the crane, according to a report by the department of Labor & Industries. The crane was set up on an ‘H’ section tower crane base using steel I-beams, instead of a more common poured concrete foundation.
See original reports
Operator error was not a factor, Investigators said the crane operator was well experienced and operated the crane properly.

Lease Crutcher Lewis is one of two companies cited for workplace safety violations in the crane collapse. The other is Magnusson Klemencic Associates, the engineering firm that designed the base.

Lease Crutcher Lewis was initially cited for failing to ensure that the crane was inspected and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
However this was modified to state that the employer did not obtain third-party oversight of the design for the non-standard tower crane base.

A second violation, not related to the crane failure, had to do with installing a sign on the tower crane that exceeded size recommendations.

Vertikal Comment

This citation has taken a great deal of time to reach a final settlement, compared to the rest of the investigation and other citations. However the most surprising aspect is the paltry level of the fine.

If the contractor’s failure to obtain third part approval of the tower foundation, was a contributing factor in the accident, then it is guilty of a serious safety oversight. Given that the crane then took a mans life surely a fine of under $10,000 is joke?

Either the contractor is guilty and the fine should reflect this by being far more punitive, or if not, what is the point of spending two years to pin such an insubstantial fine on the company?