INDUSTRIAL SAFETY & QUALITY ASSURANCE

A quality control inspector working alone on a section of pipeline was found dead by a co-worker. He had been inspecting for defects in the pipe coating prior to backfilling. After burial of the deceased without an autopsy, an Accumyn director conducted a review of the local operating company’s incident investigation which had concluded the inspector had been electrocuted by a holiday detector capable of producing 35,000 volts of electricity.

The review followed a standard investigation methodology: gather evidence, develop building blocks, construct the incident timeline, determine critical factors, and use a predefined tree to determine a root cause.  Since an investigation had already been done, evidence that had been gathered previously was augmented with new evidence.

Forensic analysis revealed that although the holiday detector produced a high voltage, it was not capable of delivering a fatal electrical current.  Burn marks on the leg were determined to have been caused by hot cooking oil and were not indicative of electrical burns.  Other environmental and personal health factors (heat stress, dietary fasting, fatigue) when combined with potential underlying health conditions, were determined to have resulted in the incident. The cause of death was concluded to have been non-work-related.

Expert consulting services were provided to a Louisiana attorney in support of litigation involving alleged violations of OSHA Standards and standard construction practice by contractors managing construction of a high rise office building in Shreveport.  The falling object case involved a ten foot 4×4 formwork support striking an employee at ground level after being jarred loose from an upper floor under construction.

After review of case documents an Accumyn director identified issues with the classification of the incident in the contractor’s First Report of Injury or Illness and provided input for production requests, including OSHA Forms 300, 300A – Logs of Work-related Injuries and Illnesses, and OSHA Form 301 – Injury and Illness Incident Report required by law to be maintained by involved contractors.  A letter report addressed OSHA’s standard construction practice requirements relevant to falling object incidents, including netting, toe plates and handrail; the insurance Experience Modification Rates (EMR’s) for each of the contractors on the project; and OSHA’s citation policy for multi-employer sites, part of CPL 2.103, OSHA’s Field Inspection Manual in effect at the time of the incident.

Accumyn Consulting was hired to provide drilling and safety management expertise for the legal team of a defendant in a case involving a personal injury claim arising from a drilling rig accident in Texas. Accumyn was asked to review documents related to the incident, and the plaintiff’s expert reports, and render opinions, including relevant oil and gas industry best practice for safety management and also concerning applicable OSHA regulations.

In the area of safety management, an expert report was written providing opinions that rebutted the plaintiff’s expert report. Mr. Threadgold’s report identified that the opposing expert had cited OSHA regulations that specifically did not apply to oil and gas well drilling operations.

With his extensive knowledge of industry guidance documents and best practice, Mr. Threadgold was able to identify numerous industry best practices that were not followed by the injured party’s employer, along with the employers own company procedures and policies. He also utilized a commonly used oil and gas industry accident causation concept called the “swiss cheese model” to help communicate the overall system failures and causes found. The case was eventually settled out of court.