4.
5.
6,
Lines
of
Supervision Were Not
Clear.
The subcontractor operational chain of
command differed significantly from the
formal organization chart. There was
considerable confusion regarding who
was directing the tank moving operation.
On-the-Job Hazard Recognition Was
Less Than Adequate (LTA):
The actual
weight of the tank was not known.
Tie-down straps were used instead of
slings. Employees were allowed to be
too close to a suspended load.
Employees did not realize that
approximately 150 gallons of water
remaining in the tank from a static lead
test added approximately
1
180 pounds
to the weight of the tank. Subcontractor
(CWM) management did not expect line
supervision to look for or identify job and
safety hazards.
Hazard Underestimated by
Subcontractor Management:
There was
not specific pre-job briefing held prior to
the tank moving operation. There was
not single person-in-charge (PIC).
Employees involved in the operation
each had a different understanding of
the lifting sequence. The forklift
operator did not see the workers enter
the berm under the suspended load.
Three of the five workers in the berm did
not attend the morning safety briefing.
In fact, the morning safety briefing DID
NOT COVER any of the days scheduled
work, including the tank moving
operation. Site safety personnel were
not aware of the operation. No
subcontractor safety personnel were
present during the moving operation.
TR244C
Rev.
5
Responsible subcontractor managers
were not on-site that day (Saturday).
WORKERS WHO WERE NOT
TRAINED
IN HOISTING AND RIGGING
WERE ASSIGNED TO THE JOB.
7.
Work Controls Were
LTA:
There was
not a proper work document for the
operation; only a "maintenance work
order" with a short narrative description
and hand-drawn sketches. This
maintenance work order included no
procedure, safety precautions,
acceptance criteria
, quality assurance ,
or signature for acceptance by the
customer. The sketches provided were
not sufficient to complete the job and
had to be supplemented by oral
instructions at the
job
site.
8.
Roles and Responsibilities Were
Not
Understood by Employees:
Employees
at the job site did not clearly understand
who was in charge of directing the tank
movement operation, and who decided
to use the tie-down straps for rigging.
Personnel involved with the job did not
receive any pre-job briefing;
consequently, the workers did not
understand what task they were to
perform.
There was a total
of three subcontractor
companies involved in the tank
operation: Chemical Waste
Management, Inc. (CWM), Rust
International Corporation (Rust), and
Veterans Steel Erection Co. (Veterans).
THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR RIGGING
AND MOVING THE TANK RESTED
WITH VETERANS. The Veterans
employees stated that they were there
to assist CWM in placing the tank.
CWM
employees stated they were there
to assist Veterans with placement of the
tank.
TC:0007224.01
Page83of
86