Worker was not trained to perform the task; no training was required to perform the task, but he died nonetheless

Another worker killed, and his colleagues injured, due to, what appears to be, a combination of an inherently unsafe hydraulic system, and the lack of training. What surprises me is, how many more deaths and injuries will need to occur before state and federal agencies wake up to the fact that less that over 95% of the people that work on and around hydraulic systems are properly trained, and that more than 99% of the hydraulic systems operating in mills and factories throughout the US are inherently unsafe by design, from the point of view of stored energy.

I suggest you read the newspaper article below so you can understand why I am frustrated.

http://www.oregonlive.com/washingtoncounty/index.ssf/2011/10/stimson_lumber_fined_5000_for.html

The regrettable, and completely avoidable, accident that occurred at the Stimson Lumber Mill is just another example of just how out of touch State and Federal safety agencies are when it comes to matters relating to hydraulic safety. From all accounts the victim and his colleagues were working on a hydraulic system that was equipped with one, or more, hydro-pneumatic accumulators (energy storage devices).

Hydro-pneumatic accumulators are known to trained mechanics as energy storage devices. However, in the hands of untrained personnel, they are nothing more and nothing less than “bombs.”

From all accounts, the victim and his colleagues could not determine if the hydraulic system contained stored energy, which seems to be what caused the accident. 

---

The fact is, over 99% of the hydraulic system operating in mills throughout Oregon, and every other state in the nation, are inherently unsafe from the point of view of stored hydraulic energy. The hydraulic system that the victim and his colleagues were working on was, in my opinion, unsafe from its inception.  It was only a matter of time before it either killed, or seriously injured, one or more people.

OSHA mandates that companies have an energy control program, and that companies train their people on energy control procedures. However, OSHA, hydraulic system designers, and corporate safety managers, ignore the fact that hydraulic systems DO NOT comply with OSHA’s standards with regard to the controlled release of stored hydraulic energy.

The standard requires workers to isolate a machine’s power source (lockout and tagout) before performing work on the machine. However, hydraulic systems have the inherent ability to store energy after the power source is locked out and tagged. What workers cannot do is determine if a hydraulic system contains stored energy, and even they could, it is not possible for them to safely remove it. What they are forced to do, as it seems they did in this case, is fly by the seat of their pants, and hope and pray they live to see another day.

The fact that both state and federal agencies, and companies like Stimson Lumber permit people that have little or no training in hydraulics to perform service and repair work on hydraulic systems, doesn’t help the matter. Telling an untrained mechanic to work on hydraulic systems is irresponsible enough. Giving an untrained worker an order to work on a hydraulic system, which is unsafe by design, is ludicrous. 

From all accounts, it was only a matter of time before a Stimson worker was either killed, or seriously injured while working on the company's hydraulic systems. Working on and around a hydro-pneumatic accumulators without proper training is akin to diffusing a bomb. Things can get very ugly very quickly.

From all accounts the hydraulic system Mr. Allen and his colleagues were working on was inherently unsafe by design (like the other 99% of the hydraulic systems operating in the US). It is also evident that Mr. Allen, and his colleagues did not have the critical training needed to identify the potential hazard, or perform the task safely. Ironically, companies, like Stimson, are not bound by law to insure workers are trained in hydraulic safety, or fundamental hydraulics. 

Most companies will only spend money on worker safety if it’s required by law, which means that over 98% of the millworkers working in Oregon have never received hydraulic safety training, and only about 20%, if that, can pass a hydraulic competency test. Accordingly, there will be more accidents, and there is no doubt, there will be more injuries and deaths. Sadly, the conclusions will remain the same: "worker was not trained to perform the task; no training was required to perform the task."

I sincerely hope that Mr. Allen’s family was able to sue the company that designed the hydraulic system. I would be interested to know if the Oregon Occupational and Health Safety Administration cited the machine manufacturer for delivering to Stimson a machine that I am alleging was inherently unsafe by design.

I was astounded by the comments made by Ms. Debra Muchow, Stimson’s Vice-President, regarding Mr. Allen: “We'll never know from the employee's perspective if he was not trained properly or whether it was just a matter of a mistake at that time.” How disgraceful!

It seems Stimson must be a very unsafe place to work. Judging from Ms. Muchow’s comments, the company doesn’t seem to know the background, qualifications and training of its employees. Her comments also reflect poorly on the company’s supervisors. Surely Mr. Allen’s supervisor must have been aware of his work skills. How would it have been possible to give him work assignments that Mr. Allen could perform with any degree of safety if his supervisor, and the company's vice president, did not know his qualifications?

The Oregon Occupational and Health Safety Administration’s response to the accident doesn't surprise me at all. It’s the usual “victim was not properly trained” scenario. Moreover, there was no mention of the fact the hydraulic system was, in my opinion, inherently unsafe by design. Regrettably, the Oregon Occupational and Health Safety Administration will probably do nothing to make it mandatory for ALL workers that perform work on and around hydraulic system receive proper training. They will also probably ignore the fact that more than 99% of the hydraulic system operating in Oregon (not just in the lumber mills) do not have the means to permit workers to determine if a hydraulic system contains stored energy, or the means to safely remove it is it does.

What we can learn from Mr. Allen’s regrettable, and avoidable, accident:

Mechanics:

1. To prevent the vice president of your company, and your supervisor, from being confused about your knowledge and training, arrange a meeting with your company’s human resources officer, and your supervisor. Have them put on record your qualifications and training. Also, make them aware of any work you do that you are not trained or qualified to do.

2. OSHA’s lockout/tagout standard clearly states: “Energy sources including electrical, mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic, chemical, thermal or other sources in machines and equipment can be hazardous to workers. During the servicing and maintenance of machines and equipment, the unexpected startup or release of stored energy could cause injury to employees.” 

Lockout and tagout does not guarantee a hydraulic system is safe to work on. Most hydraulic systems have the inherent ability to store energy after shutdown. OSHA states, “the release of stored energy must be controlled.” Unfortunately, this is not possible to achieve on more than 99% of hydraulic systems operating in the US.

The only way for a worker to remove stored energy from a hydraulic system is to ignore both the OSHA’s standard, and the machine manufacturer’s warnings, and discharge the stored energy to atmosphere with absolutely no way to control it.

3. OSHA, US companies, and your company's safety managers do not recognize hydraulics as an occupational hazard. If they did, people that work on hydraulic systems would have the same worker rights and privileges as electricians.

In OSHA’s defense, the agency is as naive about matters related to hydraulic safety as the engineers that design hydraulic systems. It's a simple case of the blind leading the blind!

Engineers:

If you are a hydraulic system designer, even though there are no standards covering the safe release of stored hydraulic energy, make sure the systems you design are safe. Mr. Allen may have been alive today, if he had had the means at his disposal to determine if the system he was working on contained stored energy.

Safety personnel:

1. If your company does not currently provide hydraulic safety training for the people that work on and around hydraulic systems, make it your top priority to get them the training they desperately need. Bear in mind, most workers cannot recognize potential hazards because they don't have training in fundamental hydraulics to do so.

2. The fact that OSHA ignores hydraulic safety doesn't mean that hydraulic systems are safe. On the contrary, hydraulic systems are arguably more hazardous than electrical systems.

3. If you teach your employees lockout and tagout. Don’t just talk the talk, please walk the walk. See to it that the hydraulic systems in your company can be safely de-energized after LOTO is performed.

Supervisors:

1. You "borrowed" the people that report to you from their respective families. Your primary responsibility to workers and their families, is to insure that you take care of them while they are in your care, and that you return them to their respective families in the same, or better, condition than they were when you "borrowed" them. If Mr. Allen's supervisor had fulfilled his promise to his family, he would never have been killed at work. NEVER permit a person perform work on any machine/system unless you are completely satisfied they have the training to perform the work safely.

2. Like electrical, confined space, hazardous materials, etc., workers that work on and around hydraulic systems MUST receive training in hydraulic safety. 

3. Look for the best training for your workers, and don't abbreviate the training. Avoid using your suppliers’ sales personnel to train your workers unless they are competent. They may be qualified salespersons, but they are not necessarily educators. Your workers deserve the best training possible. Workers must empowered to think safety and work safely. Besides, properly trained workers will increase productivity, and decrease downtime. It's a win-win for the worker, you, and the company.

I share because I care