June 20, Participants in the Molten Metal Reporting Program. FROM: Charles Johnson Vice President Policy Molten Metal Incident Report

Transcription

1 June 20, 2014 TO: Participants in the Molten Metal Reporting Program FROM: Charles Johnson Vice President Policy RE: 2013 Molten Metal Incident Report The Aluminum Association s 2013 Molten Metal Incident Report covering calendar year 2012 incidents is attached. Staff turnover at the Association has delayed the issuance of this report and significant consulting support for its development was provided by Ray Richter of Aluminum Cast Shop Consultants, LLC. This report, while not a statistical representation of the industry due to its reliance on voluntary self-reporting, once again highlights the predominant hazards that result in explosions during molten aluminum management. The Molten Metal Incident Reporting Program is worldwide and incorporates roughly 300 aluminum plants in 20 countries. This reporting program started in 1985 and the 2013 report indicates that 58 incidents were reported, no fatalities have been reported in the last 3 years, and the number of reported Force 2 and Force 3 incidents continues to decline. Overall, incident severity and frequency trends continue to decline and this portends well for the future as well. For the 2013 report, the format been significantly revised to include presentation of the information in a more visual format including extensive use of charts and graphs as compared to the prior tabular format and the report itself is now being distributed in both hardcopy and electronic formats. In addition, an MS Power Point version of the report will be available via the website link below with the expectation that this format will facilitate the easy incorporation of the report contents into corporate, business unit, and/or plant safety presentations and meetings on the topic of molten metal safety in the aluminum industry. The Association continues to use the Molten Metal Incident Report as the primary means of steering its efforts to address safety for the Aluminum industry and would like to thank all the companies who take part in the program and for their continued participation in the future. A copy of the reporting form for your use is included at the back of the Molten Metal Incident Report, and the report, incident reporting form, and supporting materials will be available online shortly at

2 THE ALUMINUM ASSOCIATION 2013 SUMMARY REPORT ON MOLTEN METAL INCIDENTS IN 2012 APRIL 2014 For the reporting year 2012, 58 reports were received on incidents occurring world-wide compared to 103 reports received for the year The attached figures summarize the reports received for 2012 and as well as the data for the years 1980 thru SUMMARY POINTS: For 2012 there were 52 Force 1, 6 Force 2 and no Force 3 incidents. For the years 1981 thru 2012, Force 2 explosions have occurred at an average rate of 24% of the total number of explosions, however in 2012 only 10% of the explosions were rated a Force 2. For 2012 there were no fatalities, only one serious injury and 22 minor injuries reported. There have been no reported fatalities over the past three years! The one serious injury in 2012 occurred in the casting process. For 2012 the highest number of explosions occurred in the casting process 24 incidents. The reduction process had a significant number as well 17 incidents. However 17 of the total 23 injuries occurred in the reduction process, all minor burns. The one serious injury occurred during casting. Over the last three years there has been only one Force 3 explosion and over the past five years there have been a total of three Force 3 explosions. This rate of Force 3 incidents is significantly lower than the average rate of 3.5 Force 3 explosions per year for the years Since the number of reported incidents has been trending downward over the past 3-5 years, it cannot be verified statistically, but there is an indication that there has been a downward trend in Force 2 & Force 3 explosions, as well as fewer fatalities in this time frame. EXPLANATION & DISCUSSION OF CHARTS AND DATA: Figure 1 displays the total number of reported incidents by year from 1981 thru The 58 incidents reported in 2012 is the lowest level since 1982 (45 incidents) and similar to years (~60 incidents). It is not known if there has been an actual reduction in incidents in the industry or reporting has not been as diligent as in other years. There appears to be a general trend of fewer reports since For the years 1981 thru 2012, the number and rates of incidents by Force Level are shown in different ways in Figures 2 thru 7.

3 Figure 2 displays the reported incidents each year for all three Force Levels. Figure 3 only shows the data for Force Levels 2 & 3 and Figure 4 displays only Force Level 3. Both Figures 3 & 4 include the average number of explosions per year for this time frame. The number of incidents varies from year to year in all three categories. Although it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions regarding the number of Force 2 & 3 incidents over the last three to four years there is some indication that they are lower. In the years 2010 thru 2012 there has only been one Force 3 incident reported, compared to an average of 3.5 incidents over the entire time period covered by this report. And only three Force 3 incidents have been reported in the past 5 years. There were only 6 Force 2 incidents in This decline in Force 2 & 3 Level incidents can be attributed to the general decline in incidents reported over these years, however if you look at the years 1996 thru 1999, which had a rather low level of reports as well, the amount of Force 2 & 3 Level incidents did not decline at that time. Figure 5 displays the Force 2 & 3 Level incidents in a different manner with linear lines fitted to the data for the years 2000 through 2012, showing a downward trend for both sets of data. The R 2 values for these fitted lines is certainly better for the Force 2 explosions than the Force 2 explosions, with 81% of the Force 2 data predicted by the fitted line, but only 55% for the predicted Force 3 line. It is certainly too early to ascertain if this is these trend lines are actually forecasting future results, especially since the total number of reported incidents are lower in recent years. This will need to be evaluated further in future years. Figures 6 and 7 display the total for each force level in two different ways for incidents in the years 1981 thru 2012: bar graph and pie chart. Force 1 Level incidents account for 70.7% of all incidents, while Force 2 Level incidents are approximately one third of this amount (25.5%) and Force 3 Level incidents are at 3.8% of the total. Injury incident data (Minor, Serious and Fatal) for the years 1981 thru 2012 are displayed in various formats in Figures 8 thru 12. Figure 8 shows Minor, Serious and Fatal injuries for each year. Figure 9 shows the total injuries in each of these categories. From the Figure 10 pie chart, 68% of all injuries are Minor, with 26% being Serious and 6% being Fatal. Figure 11 looks at the % of injuries in each category per the total number of reported incidents. This indicates that for each 100 incidents there is a 32% rate of a Minor injury, a 12% rate of a Serious injury and a 3% rate of a Fatality. Since incidents are more likely to be reported when there is an injury of some sort, these numbers are certainly inflated if all incidents were reported, but this does provide an indication of the potential rate of an injury per incident. From Figure 12, we see that there have been no fatalities reported for the years 2010 thru 2012 and three fatalities in the last five years. This recent data is well below the average of 2.8 fatalities / yr. over this time frame from 1981 thru Figures 13 thru 28 provide more detailed information regarding the 58 reported 2012 incidents along with comparison charts for the years 1980 thru Figure 13 breaks down by Force

4 Level for 2012 incidents in each of the four major categories of operations: Melting, Casting, Transfer and Other. Figure 14 provides the same data for the years 1980 thru Most of the 2012 incidents were in the area of Casting (24), however there were 17 incidents in Reduction. Six of the 58 incidents were Force 2 and there were no Force 3 incidents. As noted above, Force 2 incidents being 10% of the total is lower than typical. Figure 15 provides information on the causes of the 13 Melting incidents, with wet or cold scrap accounting for 62% of these incidents. For comparison, Figure 16 provides melting explosion data for types of charging material involved for the years 1980 thru Figure 17 provides a breakdown of the 24 Casting incidents in 2012 in two different ways: by stage in the process and by type of casting process. The Casting incidents involved three types of casting processes: 1) DC Slab or Billet, 2) Rod and 3) Sow or Mold. The majority of the Casting incidents (13 of 24) occurred during start-up, which is typical. For comparison, Figure 18 shows casting incidents by drop segment for years The 2012 data is similar to the historical data in this regards. Figure 19 provides the major causes of the 21 casting incidents in There were only three Transfer explosions in 2012 as shown in Figure 13, one being a Force 2 explosion. Figure 20 provides the causes for these three incidents. Figure 21 displays a data summary regarding the equipment involved in 673 Transfer explosions for the years 1980 thru Figure 22 shows the Injuries by Operation in 2012, resulting from the 58 explosions. There were 23 injuries reported from these 58 incidents, which is an injury to explosion ratio of 40%. There were no fatalities reported and only one injury was rated serious. All the others were rated minor. The one serious injury was the result of a Casting explosion occurring due to moisture in a drain pan at the end of a DC cast. 17 of the 23 injuries occurred in the Reduction Process; these were all minor burn injuries. Figure 23 provides Injury by Operation data for 1980 thru The highest number of minor and serious injuries have occurred in the Casting Operation, however the highest normal of fatalities have occurred in the Melting Operation. It should be noted that a significant number of injuries have occurred in Transfer Operations, with fatalities occurring even from this typically rather straight forward type of procedure. Figures 24 and 25 provide Incident data vs. the type of Process Plant for 2012 and for 1980 thru 2012 respectively. The 17 Reduction Plant injuries in 2012 are shown by process in Figure 26. The major causes of the Reduction incidents are also provided shown in this figure. Figure 27 displays 2012 Rolling Plant injuries by process and Figure 28 shows the same information for Extrusion Plant Injuries. Figure 29 summarizes the 2012 injury data vs. type of Process Plant and Figure 30 shows this same data for 1980 thru The 2012 data was similar to the trends displayed for the 1980 thru 2012 data.

5 The last page of the report provides an Aluminum Association Molten Metal Incident Report Form. RTR April 25, 2014

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Injuries by Operation Melting Casting Transfer Other Minor Serious Fatals FIGURE 23. INJURIES BY OPERATION April 2014

29 Force Level by Process Plant Reduction Extrusion Rolling Recycling Force Force Force FIGURE 24. FORCE LEVEL BY PROCESS PLANT REPORTED FOR 2012 April 2014

30 1200 Force Level by Process Plant 1980 to ReducExtru Roll Recy Foun Atom Alloy BRW Other R&D tion sion ing cling dry izing ing Force Force Force FIGURE 25. FORCE LEVEL BY PROCESS PLANT FOR April 2014

31 Reduction Plant Injuries Causes of Reduction Explosions: Wet / Damp Tools & Samplers Damp Wood Poles Wet /Damp Metal Charged into Pot 0 Melting Casting Transfer Other Minor Serious Fatals FIGURE 26. REDUCTION PLANT INJURIES BY OPERATION FOR 2012 April 2014

32 Rolling Plant Injuries Melting Casting Transfer Other Minor Serious Fatals FIGURE 27. ROLLING PLANT INJURIES BY OPERATION FOR 2012 April 2014

33

34 Injury Severity by Process Plant Reduction Extrusion Rolling Recycling Minor Serious Fatals FIGURE 29. INJURY SEVERITY BY PROCESS PLANT FOR 2012 April 2014

35 Injury Severity by Process Plant 1980 to 2012 Reduc Extru Roll Recycl Foun Atom Alloy BRW Other tion sion ing ing dry izing ing Minor Serious Fatals R&D FIGURE 30. INJURIES BY PLANT REPORTED FOR April 2014

36 ALUMINUM ASSOCIATION MOLTEN METAL INCIDENT REPORT Date of Incident (month/year) Type of Plant (Reduction, Recycling, Rolling, Extrusion, etc.) Explosion Characterization* (see explanation below) Force 1 Force 2 Force 3 OPERATION: Charging/Melting Type of Furnace (Reverb, Topcharging, Induction, etc.) Furnace Capacity lbs. % Full Alloy Metal Temperature 0 F Approximate Amount of Metal Involved lbs. Materials Charged Outside Storage? Yes No Preheat? Yes No Preheat Time & Temp Hrs. 0 F Transfer Type (Crucible, Trough, Truck, etc.) Alloy Temperature 0 F Approximate Amount of Metal Involved lbs. Casting Type of Unit (D.C. Continuous Sand & P.M., etc) Alloy Stage of Operation Temperature (Start-up, Termination, etc.) 0 F Approximate Amount of Metal Involved lbs. Other Describe Brief Description of Incident and Results, Including Extent of Injuries *Explosion Characterization Force1 Property Damage None Light Minimal Sound Short Cracking Vibration Short Sharp Metal Dispersion <15 Radius Force 2 Property Damage Minor Light Flash Sound Loud Report Vibration Brief Rolling Metal Dispersion Radius Force 3 Property Damage Considerable Light Intense Sound Painful Vibration Massive Structural Metal Dispersion >50 Radius Please Return To: Charles Johnson VP, Policy The Aluminum Association 1525 Wilson Blvd, Suite 600 Arlington, VA W (703) F (703) cdjohnson@aluminum.org