"solution melted ....(worker's) boot....cooked his foot...."

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.