Safety Alert for Supervisors: 4/20/26

Incident summary A technician died from burn shock two days after he was engulfed in flames when a driver prematurely pulled his truck away while a flammable liquid was still being transferred. What happened Assigned to manage the transfer of a flammable liquid to a storage tank from a truck, a technician connected an 18- foot transfer hose from the truck to the storage tank. After confirming that the hose was securely attached, the technician initiated the transfer. Meanwhile, the driver of the truck was sitting in the cab when another worker handed him the paperwork for the job. The driver signed the documents and, without thinking, began to drive the truck forward with the transfer hose still attached. As the truck lurched ahead, the hose coupling from the storage tank disconnected, which caused flammable vapors to leak from the tank and form a large, thick cloud. As soon as the truck driver realized what was going on, he jumped from the cab and tried to push the emergency shutdown button on the back of the truck. But it was too late. The vapor cloud drifted over a generator, which provided an ignition source that caused the toxic cloud to explode. First responders arrived a short time later. They rushed the technician and the driver to the hospital. The driver was treated for minor burn injuries and released the next day. The technician wasn’t so lucky. He died two days later from burn shock. Findings The crew should’ve used more rigorous procedures for communication during the task. The driver of the truck mistakenly thought that the job was finished when he was handed the paperwork. He didn’t realize that the transfer hose was still attached. Toxic vapor cloud ignites; worker engulfed in flames Two days after incident, crew member dies from burn shock You make the call: Supervisor didn’t know safety rule was being violated “ W e didn’t even know Anthony was violating one of our safety rules when he got hurt,” said George, the supervisor. “What safety rule are you talking about?” asked Tammy, the compliance officer. “We have a rule that forbids two employees from entering the danger zone around that large machine at the same time,” said George. “We don’t want anyone hitting the jog button on the equipment while a coworker tries to clear a jam.” Caught in pinch point “That’s a solid safety rule,” said Tammy. “However, your worker, Anthony, and one of his colleagues violated your rule when they both went into the restricted area at the same time. The coworker activated the jog button while Anthony tried to free a jam. As you know, Anthony’s hand got caught in a pinch point and he was severely injured. I’m citing you for violating our lockout/tagout regulation.” “There was no violation of your regulation because the equipment didn’t need to be deenergized,” said George. “If the men had abided by our rule forbidding two staffers from entering the danger zone at the same time, lockout procedures wouldn’t have been required.” “Well, two of your people ignored your rule,” said Tammy, “and one of them was badly hurt, so your argument lacks merit.” No evidence “I disagree,” said George. “You have no evidence that we even knew our rule was being ignored, and you can’t hit us with a penalty for a safety violation we weren’t aware of. We’ll challenge your citation.” Did the company win? 2 Safety News Lower the risk of injuries by escalating your safety focus at this time of day. 2 Quick Ideas A study has shown that heat exposure increases the risk of male infertility. 3 Legal Developments Mistake: Host employer disregarded contractor’s complaints about truck. 3 Horror Stories Crew member tumbles from palm tree, is fatally impaled by fence pole. 4 Safety Meeting Incidents involving hand tools account for 8% of all workplace injuries. In this issue ■ Make your call, then go to page 3 for the court’s ruling. April 20, 2026 SafetyAlert FOR SUPERVISORS The No. 1 source of actionable information to help supervisors keep their people safe Including: Supervisor’s Safety Toolbox