The Aluminium Plant Safety Blog has posted incidents involving fires
that were ignited by a variety of sources. Including but not limited to
furnaces, molten metal, moveable equipment, flammable liquid, maintenance
activities, etc. Here is a recent incident that emphasizes the need for
identification and mitigation of ignition sources:
Two
people were hurt, one critically, in a blaze that started when work done
outside a large manufacturing plant ignited flammable aluminum, the local fire
marshal's office said.
A
worker was in critical condition with burns at a nearby hospital and a
firefighter also was rushed there after his leg was fractured by falling duct
work, said the head of investigations for the local fire marshal's office.
The
blaze was reported one afternoon during the week of June 21, 2015 in the Northeast
United States, a business that uses flammable metals to make parts and
coatings, authorities said.
The
worker, 46, went outside to fix a malfunction in a duct and machine unit that
sends aluminum powder, a byproduct of the company's metallic coatings and
machine parts, into a drum, fire investigators said.
The
worker was using power tools in the rear of the facility, the head of
investigations for the fire marshal's office said.
"It
looks like he accidentally ignited some metal dust," he said. He was in
critical but stable condition with second-degree burns over 25 percent of his
body, including his head and stomach, Hickman said.
The
firefighter, 27, from a local volunteer fire department, was in good condition
just before surgery later that afternoon, he said. The Occupational Safety and
Health Administration is investigating, the fire marshal's office said.
Special
fire extinguishers, which spray a dry chemical, had to be used by the fire
marshal's hazmat team, the head of investigations for the fire marshal's office
said. Certain metals burn "vigorously" and react "nastily"
to water, he said.
A
drum of aluminum powder also caught fire and the contents had to be dumped out
so the fire could be put out, authorities said. The fire was confined to the
outside and five departments helped contain it at 4 p.m., authorities said.
A
next door school for adult education told dozens of staffers to leave early,
said an employee, who was answering phones: "Everybody was let go for
safety reasons."
She
said a "sour" odor was in the air outside. School was out for the
year, and night classes were canceled.
The Aluminium Plant Safety Blog prays that both individuals injured
in this incident recover fully from their physical and any mental injuries. For
both individuals the physical healing will may take less time than the healing
of any mental injuries. We hope that they are offered any mental counseling to
deal with the aftermath of this incident.
It appears that the worker who was burned over 25% of his body was
performing maintenance on or near the dust collector. The worker was operating
under a false safety belief. A false safety belief is where a habit or
procedure is thought to be safe but only after an incident occurs is that
procedure found to be actually unsafe. The APSB has posted incident after
incident where worker(s) stated that they performed the same procedure (where
they were injured) in the past. But for whatever circumstances no incident
occurred. That is the reason why your plant should periodically review
procedures and not to make the assumptions that because “that’s how we have
always been doing it” is fine. The APSB acknowledges that the previous
statement may not apply to newer facilities. But, nevertheless no matter the
age of the plant all procedures should be periodically reviewed.
Also, the APSB wonders if the worker’s clothing was flame resistant.
Was his underclothing (e.g., undershirt, underwear) cotton based or synthetic? Hopefully
the company will reevaluate what clothing their workers wear. The APSB has
posted incidents where worker’s clothing catching on fire resulted in severe
burns and many succumbed to their injuries.
Please comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment