Worker injured when suspended load fell
Date of incident: May 2021
Notice of incident number: 2021194970014
Employers: Oil or gas production company; oil and gas industry service provider
Incident summary
Workers at a natural gas facility were removing the internal components of an amine separator tower (a vessel used to remove hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide from gases). While the workers were manually hoisting an internal part, it fell approximately 11.5 m and struck a worker, causing serious injuries.
Investigation conclusions
Cause
- Failure to identify hazards of workers working under a suspended load.
- Two workers were standing in the narrow interior confines of the tower as the load (the panel) was lifted over their heads by a third worker. The panel hit the sides of the tower repeatedly on the way up. When it was nearly at the top, the rope fastened around it slipped off and the panel fell, striking one of the two workers inside the tower on its way down.
- The inadequate hazard assessments by the oil or gas production company (prime contractor) and the oil and gas industry service provider (service provider) failed to identify the hazards of working under suspended loads. The tower lacked a bottom hatch, so workers had to remove the panels through its top hatch, the only point of access to the interior. This placed them in the narrow confines of the tower’s interior without an escape route in case a panel fell, which constituted an additional hazard that should have been identified.
- Because the employers had not carried out an adequate hazard assessment, the safe work procedure (SWP) that was developed for removing the panels lacked control measures to minimize or eliminate the hazards of working under a suspended load. The SWP should have been developed more thoroughly to ensure that workers had clear direction from the service provider on how to complete the task safely.
Contributing factors
- Inadequate information, instruction, training, and supervision.
- The service provider failed to provide information and instruction crucial for its workers to safely remove the panels. Not only was the SWP developed for the job inadequate, but it was also not provided to the tower crewmembers.
- The service provider was unable to provide evidence that any of the workers had been trained on rigging. If the workers had received such training, they would likely have identified the hazards of standing under suspended loads. Workers would also have been instructed in proper rigging techniques, including checking safe working load information on hoisting equipment, as well as prohibited conditions such as knots in the rope. The service provider failed to provide adequate training to its workers who were directed to carry out rigging activities.
- The tower crew did not have access to the SWP for the task of removing the panels, and the task went ahead without an adequate SWP or any controls to ensure the safety of the workers. A supervisor even participated in the hoisting of the panels while workers remained under the suspended loads. This indicates that the service provider did not provide adequate supervision to its workers on the tower crew.
- Inadequate worksite coordination. The prime contractor did not have representatives on site during the work activities on the night of the incident, and its representatives did not attend the service provider’s safety meeting that was held before the night shift crew started work on the tower. Accordingly, the prime contractor failed to ensure that work activities relating to health and safety were coordinated. Further, it failed to do everything that was reasonably practicable to maintain a system or process that ensures compliance with Part 2 of the Workers’ Compensation Act and with the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation.
Other safety issues
- Failure to adhere to first aid procedures and emergency response plan. When, at the time of the incident, a decision was made to bypass the higher level of first aid and related services provided by the prime contractor, the servicer provider’s responsibilities to provide adequate first aid services to its workers were initiated. The service provider failed to ensure the level of first aid attendant was adequate and appropriate for transportation of the injured worker.
- Rigging equipment.
- The equipment used by the service provider’s workers on the evening of the incident had several deficiencies. The rope that was being used to wrap the panels and hoist them above the workers had not been inspected prior to use and was observed after the incident to have a knot in it and to lack identification marks.
- The service provider had also provided a shackle for the purpose of hoisting the larger panels that had holes to attach the shackle to them. Workers provided investigators a similar shackle that was believed to have been made at the service provider’s shop. Workers stated neither shackle had an identification mark containing the working load limit as determined and certified by a professional engineer (a requirement under the Regulation).
2021-04-22 20:42:33