'sustained fractures requiring surgery and burns from the explosion"

In each department there are countless jobs. Workers should be trained to perform a specific task. One should never assume that because a worker did task "A", then they should be able to do task "B". Here is an incident on what could occur when a worker was not properly trained for a job function.

A Canadian aluminum foundry pleaded guilty and has been fined over €70,000 after a worker suffered fractures and burns in a workplace explosion.

The company produces various aluminum automotive parts at two operations located at the same address, comprising a foundry and a computer numerical control (CNC) machining facility.

In the summer of 2013, a worker who usually worked at the machining portion of the facility was asked to work at the foundry; the worker had worked in the foundry area only about a half-dozen times before. The worker was tasked with examining whether two propane-fueled torch wands were lit - a procedure known as the 'pre-heat pump well procedure.

For this task, wands were used to heat a pump well, a small cube-like structure facilitating the outflow of molten metal from an aluminum melter. Lit torch wands were typically placed in the pump well to prevent solidifying and build-up of molten metal that can impair the proper functioning of the pump or the melter.

The worker performed the task as it had been seen performed by other foundry workers. The worker climbed on the pump well and perched atop its surface. The top of the pump well is mostly a flat surface and it accommodates a hatch; when opened, the hatch allows for lit torch wands to heat up the inside of the pump well. The worker was wearing safety glasses and gloves but not a face shield.

While checking the wands there was an explosion. The force and heat generated by the explosion knocked the worker back and caused the worker to jump two meters to the concrete ground below. As a result of the fall the worker sustained fractures requiring surgery and burns from the explosion.

The worker had not performed the task before, had not received any related training before attempting the task, and there was no written or other procedure to refer to in order to determine a safe way to completed the assignment on the day of the incident.

Following the incident the company developed a safe procedure for the pump well pre-heat process that includes use of a dome mirror to make flame detection easier, and also installed a step platform so that standing on top of the pump well is no longer necessary.

The foundry pleaded guilty to failing to provide information, instruction and supervision to a worker on the measures and procedures to follow when performing the pump well pre-heat task, and was fined over €70,000  in provincial court one day during the week of on February 28, 2016.

In addition to the fine, the court imposed a 25-per-cent victim fine surcharge as required by the Provincial Offences Act. The surcharge is credited to a special provincial government fund to assist victims of crime.

The Aluminium Plant Safety Blog prays that the injured worker recovers fully from his injuries. We also hope that any mental health services are offered to him and his coworkers if requested.

This incident would fall into the fall safety belief area that injures and even kills so many workers. A false safety belief are habits or practices that overtime have been thought to be safe but are actually not. They begin when a lack of knowledge transforms into a habit or a practice. Overtime practices are assumed to be safe. It is only after an incident resulting in an injury or death that the practice is found to actually be a hazard.

The injured worker performed the task “as it had been seen performed by other … workers”. Unfortunately he did not know that the task he was doing had not been properly planned out. We have posted incidents such as this where workers performed the same task, in the same manner, and eventually an incident occurs. It is only then that plant management realizes that the task was inherently dangerous and in many cases by sheer luck no one was injured beforehand.

Not knowing the layout of this plant, one wonders if the worker should have been wearing a safety harness. Because he was working 2 meters above the factory floor. The worker’s burns may have been lesson with the use of a face shield too.

Please comment.