LEONARD GRAY / L’Observateur / January 12, 2000

GRAMERCY – Kaiser Aluminum is poised to begin rebuilding its Gramercy plant in the wake of 21 citations it was issued Friday in connection with the July 5 explosion at that plant.

All that was required is approval of an air quality permit from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, and a hearing was planned last night in Gramercy’s town hall.

St. James Parish President Dale Hymel Jr. added of Kaiser, “They’re readyto rebuild; all they need is that air permit.”Hymel estimated the loss of the Kaiser plant to the taxing bodies of St.

James Parish now totals $1.3 million and counting.Meanwhile, new labor talks are in progress in Washington D.C., throughFriday, with new negotiating teams.

“We’re optimistic about that,” Hymel said.

On Friday, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and HealthAdministration issued 21 safety violation citations against Kaiser, seven of the violations, it said, contributing directly to the July 5 blast which injured 29 people.

The other 14 violations were issued for associated violations, according to Diana Petterson of MSHA.

The blast alarmed and disturbed hundreds of citizens in nearby Gramercy and Lutcher, many of whom dealt with aluminae dust and other chemical residue on their homes and vehicles. Several businesses and homeslikewise had glass and even structural damage from the explosion.

“The issuance of citations is a standard part of MSHA’s enforcement process,” Davitt McAteer, assistant labor secretary for mine safety and health, commented, adding, “Hopefully, it will help prevent similar accidents in the future.”Penalties, which could include criminal prosecutions, have not yet been announced. A written final report on MSHA’s investigation is likewisepending.

Kaiser quickly announced plans to appeal not only the citations itself but also continued its contention that MSHA was not the proper agency to conduct an investigation. This is despite the fact that MSHA health andsafety standards are the federal guidelines Kaiser operated under for the 30 years it had been open in Gramercy.

Scott Lamb of Kaiser said, “When you look at the way the investigation unfolded, you can understand our frustration.”He said the citations will have no effect on Kaiser’s plans to rebuild the plant and noted the timing of the citations, when new talks are under way with striking employees, “was somewhat of a surprise for us.”Stanley Folse, spokesman of United Steelworkers of America Local 5702, said the violations only back up what they have claimed all along, that Kaiser operated the plant “in a dangerous and irresponsible way, with badly-trained replacement workers, after locking out its experienced workforce.”Kaiser employees went on strike Sept. 30, 1998, in response to what theyassert are unfair labor practices. Union workers offered to return to workon Jan. 13, 1999, and on the following day, were locked out of the facility.The most severe violations MSHA claimed were as follows: 1. It was determined that the pressure relief safety system, installed torelieve excessive pressure in flash tanks 6, 7, 8 and 9, was inoperative.

Excessive pressure built up and eventually caused one or more of the tanks to rupture violently. Failure to correct this defect in a timely manner isevidence of a serious lack of reasonable care which constitutes more than ordinary negligence and is an unwarrantable failure to comply with a mandatory safety standard.

2. It was determined that sectiolons of the pressure relief piping designedto vent excessive pressures for the digestion flash tanks were partially blocked and, in at least one case, was totally blocked with scale. Thescale was in layers which indicated deposits had accumulated over an extended period of time.

3. It was determined that the 36-inch diameter discharge pipe connectingthe blowoff tank to the relief tank had a buildup of scale in one section which significantly reduced the inside pipe diameter. This scale builduprestricted the flow of slurry from the flash tanks after the power failure.

4. It was determined the mine operator routinely allowed the digestionprocess to be operated while pressure in one or more pressure vessels exceeded the design capacity intended by the manufacturer.

5. It was determined that on July 4, the mine operator failed to examinefor and promptly initiate appropriate actions to correct conditions that posed hazards to the miners.

6. It was determined that the mine operator failed to notify MSHA of theaccident in a timely manner.

Furthermore, MSHA claimed that Kaiser “impeded and/or interfered with MSHA’s investigation,” denying investigators certain requested documents, drawing and diagrams in their possession; removed, deleted and/or modified electronically-stored data without MSHA’s knowledge or permission; on July 10, Kaiser officials and a consultant entered MSHA- restricted areas without permission Other violations centered on what MSHA asserted was inadequate training and lack of safety gear on the part of four employees.

Rather than respond to the citations point-by-point, Lamb said, “My preference is to back up and say, in whole, we just completely disagree with the substance of the 21 citations.”He added that Kaiser will appeal the citations to an administrative law judge and concluded, “We will pursue our challenge expeditiously, I can guarantee you that.”

Return To News Stories