The variety of personnel protection equipment (PPE) in our plants is
reflective to the different hazards that exist. The Aluminium Plant Safety Blog
has posted incidents where a worker(s) from one department got injured or
killed when performing a job function in another department. One of the
contributing factors in each incident is that the worker(s) did not change into
the proper PPE when they entered the different department.
During a conversation with an aluminium company C.E.O. about safety
we heard the following story about PPE. This CEO had a routine that during
plant visits he would visit the exact area where a recordable incident
occurred. The CEO would ask that the shop floor worker(s) and immediate
supervisor explain to him what actually occurred and what steps were taken to
prevent recurrence. The CEO did this not to admonish the worker and his/her
supervisor but as a learning experience for himself as well as the workers. At
one European plant the recordable incident was near an extrusion die
cleaning room. After meeting with the worker(s) the CEO wanted to walk into the
extrusion die cleaning room. But his entry was blocked by the worker who
performed the die cleaning. Why? Well the worker told the CEO that he could not
enter because he was not wearing the proper PPE. The worker was not rude, but
simply stated that no one could enter without the proper PPE. Which the CEO was
not wearing. Later the CEO smiled and told the APSB editor about how proud he
was of that worker who prevented him from entering that room. That CEO and the
aluminium company management had worked hard to create an environment where
safety is embraced, not feared. They were successful. That CEO was Svein Tore Holsether, formerly of Sapa now with Yara International ASA.
Here is a recent story that emphasizes the need to wear the proper
PPE for the job function that is being performed.
A man
whose skin and flesh were burned by an industrial grade chemical is suing his
employer for negligence in Australia.
The
worker is seeking damages from an alumina company after he was injured in his
role as an alumina producer in 2002 in a three day civil trial which began one
day during the week of September 27, 2015.
The
worker appeared behind the witness box wearing the only footwear he could,
thongs, and gave evidence against his employer which included extensive surgery
and skin grafts to his badly burned left heel and ankle.
Barrister
told the court that the worker came in contact with a caustic soda solution,
used to dissolve aluminium bearing minerals in bauxite, when his manager
instructed him to replace a part in an on-site pipe.
The
barrister said the worker was not trained in the task at the time, had not
performed the task before and was only accompanied by a more experienced
employee for a short amount of time.
The
court heard worker used a ratchet to turn a valve on the pipe from open to
closed but scale build-up on the pipe and the size of the ratchet obscured his
view of the label on the valve, which was already closed.
A
blockage prevented the majority of the caustic soda from being released from
the open pipe when the worker undid three or four bolts, but when he returned
from smoko an hour later and removed the other bolts, the blockage cleared and
sprayed the chemical on him "with force".
The
caustic solution melted the worker’s boot.
A
colleague told the worker, "That's no worries, we'll let it drain, let's
go to smoko," when the worker told him some of the solution, which he
assumed was a residual amount, had leaked from the pipe when he undid the
initial bolts.
The
worker returned to his normal workload in August this year and had to wear
specially fabricated boots.
Evidence
from the worker's ex-partner revealed he became "a different person, like
he wasn't even there", following the accident.
Cross-examination
of the plaintiff is continuing.
The Aluminium Plant Safety Blog prays that the injured worker’s physical
and mental injuries heal overtime. As the story above points out that the
incident occurred over three years ago and the worker still suffers physically.
We assume that the injured worker is still suffering mentally. Our industry is
not unlike many other industries which minimize the metal impact an injury has
upon a worker. The APSB has spoken to hundreds of workers who have been injured
on the job. The injuries vary but a majority of the worker’s will tell us that they
are surprised on how hard the mental aspect of dealing with an injury is. We
have heard of incidents where a worker will recover physically but not
mentally and will either transfer to another department or exit the industry. So
we pray that this worker and every worker who is dealing with the long term
effects mentally due to an injury look for assistance to deal with their pain.
This worker’s injuries would have been minimized or eliminated if he
was wearing the proper PPE. In addition the importance of following proper
lockout tagout procedures is highlighted in this incident. The worker made an
assumption that his coworker statements was correct when he said that the line
was drained. The APSB has participated in numerous lock out tag out operations.
Each and every time we never accept “we were told that is done”, “another
worker did that”, etc. We always insist (sometime rudely), that we want to
confirm who did what, and not to rely on second hand information. Sometimes we
find that some workers who perform lockout tagout procedures on a routine basis
are complacent. They make assumptions, some make lots of assumptions. We
explain to them how an assumption during a lockout tagout
resulted in an injury or fatality within the past few months. Most times the
workers understand that making assumptions, not double checking, not triple
checking can have catastrophic results.
The APSB has posted incident after incident where failure to “double
block and bleed” has resulted in injuries and fatalities. Occupational
Safety and Health Administration defines "Double block and bleed" as
the closure of a line, duct, or pipe by closing and locking or tagging two
in-line valves and by opening and locking or tagging a drain or vent valve in
the line between the two closed valves.
Here is a page that explains “Double block and bleed” in detail. Click here. Does your plant have double block and bleed values? If you don't know, just ask a maintenance person. They'll know.
Please comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment