Case Study 3 Chemical Splash

Accident

Case Study 3 Chemical Splash

Link for Case Study 3: https://youtu.be/w8Q7MzyU3e0

Reference: Youtube.com
1. What is the fault of the operator?
The operator did not realize that the valve to the tote was open. As soon as the camlock was loosened,
liquid in the tote blew the cap off. The operator was standing in the line of fire and was drenched with
the chemical. The operator reported that they thought the valve was closed because some totes have
the valve handle line up with the pipe when closed. The operator was correct that some totes did not
follow the convention.

2. Are safety regulations met and followed? What are the violations in BOSH.
No. The operator was wearing goggles that protected their eyes, but they were not wearing a face shield
or splash suit. They had Safety Data about using their safety equipment but the sign had a lot of text and
wasn’t clear. There was a safety shower that was not too far from the area, but the operator couldn’t
see to get there. As soon as they were sprayed, they used their sleeve to wipe across their face to get
the chemical off.

3. What is the fault on the employer's side?

Safety procedures called for a face shield, but the individual wasn’t clear on the requirements. The rules
were posted from the Safety Data, but the sign had a lot of text and wasn’t especially clear or effective.
They didn’t orient well their new employee about where they could find the safety shower. It wasn’t
covered in a pre-task review. Management did not identify that the safety showers were further from
the area then called for by site practice for a corrosive chemical.

4. What are the lapses and causes of the accident?

The people were not wearing their safety equipment properly which results in injuries. After showering,
their skin was red from the chemical but the area around the eyes was normal. Investigation of the
incident identified that the chemical had recently been changed from an irritating chemical to a
corrosive chemical. One chemical vendor used a design with the pipe on the side of the tote rather than
in the center. The handle on other totes would extend outside the tote if a normal ball valve was used,
so the manufacturer rotated the handle 90 degrees. This created a dangerously confusing environment
and should not be allowed in a plant.
5. What could've been done to avoid the accident?
The sign should be clear and easy to understand. Simple signs with graphical Personal Protective
Equipment (PPE) requirement with correct font size with simple color be more effective than signs with
high information density. Make sure that they covered all of the pre-task reviews before going to the
working area where the chemicals are being stored.