This is a crazy case! The mill hired a contractor to build scaffolding inside one of its Chlorine Dioxide (CLO2) tanks. The mill prepped the tank and even performed the initial air sampling of the space. Turned it over to one of the scaffolding contractor employees who would be the attendant for the entry. Three entrants and the attendant were wearing personal Cl2 air monitors. Three scaffolding builders entered the tank. After 30-40 minutes, one of them felt ill and exited the tank. Once outside his personal detector alarmed. Soon after, the other two workers’ detectors went into alarm, and they exited the tank. Two entrants were hospitalized for two (2) days; the other two were treated and released. The employee who filed the suit continued to suffer symptoms from chlorine dioxide exposure, including excessive coughing and wheezing. He was diagnosed with bronchiolitis obliterans and upper airway injuries.
He sued the mill, the company that made the personal detectors, and the company that supplied the detectors.
So far, he has lost his case. This was his appeal, but it did not go well.
The paper mill claimed they had no control over the event, even though it was their tank on their property. This post is NOT about limiting liability but about managing PRCS entry hazards.
I will note that the meters’ manufacturer presented evidence that two of the monitors detected chlorine dioxide limits that would have put them into alarm, but the monitors were switched off less than two minutes later. This happened several times over 24 minutes for one monitor and 33 minutes for the other. As noted above, their final inspection of the monitors before they were sold to the rental company had low alarm settings at 0.10 ppm and high alarm settings at 0.20 ppm. By the time of the incident, the settings had been changed to 0.20 ppm and 0.50 ppm. Safway employees stated that they had not changed the settings. The presumption is that the rental company changed them.
Here is all the legal wrangling!
