DSS112: Fifty Years in Dust Explosion and Fire Safety with George Mickiewicz

George Mickiewicz has been involved in the dust explosion and fire safety field for over 50 years. In his second appearance on the podcast, he shares more of the insights and lessons learned acquired in various industries across the globe.

Lessons Learned From a Dust Explosion Tragedy

As the lead investigator for a tragic dust explosion at a site he worked at, George realized that change could only occur when it was backed by a group instead of a single individual. He helped form a team of committed people who would share information and take important insights back to the management teams at their respective businesses.

This group, called DEAFS (short for Dust Explosion And Fire Safety) met in person once a year to exchange information and speak with consultants as well as vendors who sold dust explosion prevention and mitigation technologies.

“The combination of this effort was what I call a mini Dust-Ex symposium,” George says. “(It) really and truly brought us a lot of networking and leveraging that we benefited a lot from in future years.”

Lagging vs. Leading Indicators: Where Are We Today?

When discussing metrics, George refers to lagging and leading indicators. With combustible dust safety, lagging indicators include the number of reported fires and explosions while leading indicators are factors like percentage of facilities applying the latest protection technologies and hazard assessments.

“If I look at the (these) indicators, it tells me that if we have improved, it hasn’t been very much. Again, that’s my opinion,” he says. “Perhaps these facilities are built to different standards and are operated in a different way than they should be operated.”

He added that information availability has improved greatly thanks to resources like Dust Safety Science.

“The biggest challenge that I have always faced since that explosion in 89 was: where do I go to get that information that I don’t have, that I need to make the correct decision, to make sure that this event never happens again? There was not a single place that I could go to.

“I Googled things and contacted people. I got information, but a central repository of that technology just did not exist. There were consulting firms but I think the difference between what (Dust Safety Science) has done and what the other companies that I was aware of have done is that they were looking at it strictly as a business. (Dust Safety Science has) gone beyond the business piece and offered a lot of other mechanisms and opportunities where those who are interested can learn about this in many different ways, fashions and forms without having to pay a single cent.”

Recommendations Going Forward

George said that a critical question involves what facility managers are doing with the results of dust hazard analyses and other safety review measures.

“Have goals, objectives, programs been established to address those items that need to be improved upon? Do we have an effort to recognize and celebrate those individuals or those teams or those organizations that have made suggestions to improve the related situations around combustible dust risks? Do we have the internal know-how to continue to maintain and sustain this effort?”

He admitted that some of his clients have received detailed reports but done nothing with them.

“The organizations need to understand the value and the energy and the time that is spent in doing these analyses for their benefit.”

George also recommended a stronger system of accountability. Managers would be held responsible for instituting safety measures in their goals and objectives. If this didn’t happen, it could impact their salary and prospects within the company. It’s a case where progress is supported by consequences.

Conclusion

George emphasized that increased safety in industries handling combustible dust relies on awareness of the danger and the willingness to share information across all levels of an organization.

“The most challenging aspect (is) how to bring the right information to the individual on the ground floor who is vulnerable to that given event, so that he or she does the right things every time to minimize the risk that they are potentially involved in. If you guys come up with a solution for that, you’ll probably get the Nobel Peace Prize.”