LEONARD GRAY / L’Observateur / July 1, 2000

CONVENT – Kaiser Aluminum is on the offensive, defending itself against legal claims that the Gramercy facility’s management is responsible for the blast which shook St. James Parish almost one year ago and injured 29workers.

Kaiser filed suit Wednesday in the 23rd Judicial District Court at Convent against the manufacturers and contractors responsible for the electronic relay device which, Kaiser attorneys claim, was the real culprit in causing the July 5, 1999 blast.

Kaiser attorney Rick Sarver of the New Orleans law firm of Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittman & Hutchinson, said the relay device was installed two weeks prior to the explosion in a switchhouse. Its purpose was to clearelectrical faults and prevent what actually occurred.

The reason the device failed in its purpose, Sarver added, was due to a number of mistakes made by the installing contractor. Among thosemistakes was the use of double-sided tape to secure electrical lines.

Humidity in the switchhouse weakened the adhesive of the tape, and the lines fell across a crossbar, causing an electrical fault.

“The plasma arc caused a burn mark the size of a softball,” Sarver said.

Instead of the relay device handling the fault and heading off the blast, the device (which Sarver added was also badly programmed) ignored the signal and allowed pressure to build up in the lines.

Among those named in the lawsuit filed by Kaiser are the device manufacturer, Power and Control Systems International of Baton Rouge; MEI Corp. of Prairieville, the contractor installing the device; Excel GroupInc. of Prairieville, the subcontractor who did the actual installation; andAdhesives Research Inc. of Glen Rock, Pa., the manufacturer of theadhesive which failed.

“The ironic thing is that the device was installed as a safety device,” Sarver continued. In August 1992, a power failure at the plant caused byHurricane Andrew prompted Kaiser officials to have this system installed to prevent just such accidents. “And it ended up causing it,” said Sarver.The system was installed in 1997 and 1998, and the job was completed just weeks prior to the accident.

The suit is asking for property damage compensation, loss of income compensation, corporate expenses compensation and legal fees.

The case has been assigned to Judge Guy Holdridge. No trial date has beenset.

As all this is going on, Kaiser is also defending itself against the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration, which levied a $533,000 fine against the company for 21 separate violations, including operating the plant beyond its limits, lack of proper worker training and unsafe working conditions.

Kaiser spokesman Scott Lamb said the plant is planning a partial start-up of alumina ore refining in a matter of weeks and hopes to be back in full operation early in 2001.

United Steelworkers of America Local 5702 officials had no comment on the Kaiser lawsuit. They have been on strike against the Gramercy facilitysince Sept. 30, 1998.

Return To News Stories