Two unconscious supplier workers on the 40th day... Was the valve open?

On January 13th, a chemical leakage accident occurred at LG Display Plant 8 in Paju.

This is mainly due to the leakage of tetramethylammonium hydroxide (TMAH), a chemical used in developer or cleaning, in the display process.

According to the Han River Basin Environment Administration, it is estimated that about 500L has leaked.

This chemical, which can cause neurotoxicity when it comes into contact with the skin, was sprayed on the entire body of Moo Choi and Moo Lee, employees of a partner company.

On that day, the dispatcher said in a briefing, "The liquid was exposed to the whole body, and I was transferred to the hospital while doing CPR. It was reported that the pulse returned a little while ago."

# At the time of the accident

However, on the 40th day of the accident today (22nd), employees of the partner company, Mr. Choi and Mr. Lee, are still lying in bed in an unconscious state.

In addition, 5 people were injured.

From January 5, one week before the accident, the subcontractors to which they belonged were in charge of replacing PHOTO No. 6, an idle facility, and piping renovation on the 5th floor of the MR (machine room) of the 8th factory in Paju.

The SBS reporters contacted each official for three weeks after the accident on January 13th to report on the accident.

As a result, on February 8th ① before the accident, employees of various suppliers asked LG Display several times to ask, "Please lock the pipe because it is open" (▶ [Exclusive] Before the accident, "Multiple requests for locking the pipe") and ② The situation that the employees of the partner companies, such as Mr. Choi and Mr. Lee, who were unconscious at the time, were unable to clean the exposed chemical substances in time due to the cleaning of the chemical substances that were leaked after the accident, and were eventually found collapsed (▶ [Solo] , Said to clean the floor").

The accident on this day is being investigated by the police.

Before today's National Assembly Environmental Labor Committee's hearing on industrial accidents, I will tell you the questions about the accident, what needs to be revealed, and the contents of our coverage.

but the amount of chemical leaked was about 500L.

Supplier officials say that this amount is not simply spilling liquid remaining in the pipe.

On January 13th, it is known that the construction was part of the work of replacing PHOTO 6 with new equipment (tank) and re-installing the piping.

So, I was in the process of removing the existing pipe or fitting a new pipe, but it is unlikely that the liquid TMAH remaining in the existing pipe will be 500L.

If so, it is speculated that the valve, the faucet in the pipe through which TMAH flows, was either not locked or, for some reason, was less closed.

At that time, it was known that there were a total of six pipes at the site of the accident, but LG Display explained to the SBS reporter that the accident pipe was not the same-day work pipe.

# LG Display Response (February 8th)

-The

In other words, it is explained that the subcontractors to which Mr. Choi and Lee, who are unconscious, are in charge of the'tank' on this day, and that the piping work is the responsibility of another subcontractor B. )

Then, when asked if there was a leak after Mr. Choi and Mr. Lee touched a valve (or the pipe itself) on a pipe that was not the object of work, the company said that it was "investigation."

However, it seems difficult to say that LG Display, the original source, is not responsible for the leak that occurred at the LG Display workplace.

Even though the suppliers responsible for the tank (Company A) and the valve (Company B) are different.

According to the daily permit issued by LG Display to Company A on January 13, which was obtained by the reporters, the name of the work was'Piping room piping construction work'.

The location of the work is also indicated on the 5th floor of MR (the upper part of the 3rd floor of CR), which is the place of the accident.

Also, if you look at the daily checklist held at 10 am on the day, you can see that a ○ is marked in the'Good' column on whether or not to take measures to prevent chemical leakage.

Even if they touched a pipe that wasn't the object of work, the workers at the accident contractor were upset while working at a licensed workplace.

In addition, given that LG Display conducted a preliminary inspection for chemical leakage, if the construction was started from January 5th, it would be right that safety measures to ensure that the valves are properly closed should have been continuously taken.

Otherwise, it would not have been possible to mark'good' on the daily work permit issued by LG Display every day.

Even as the reporters confirmed, it is said that LG Display admitted last week that "it is correct that the pipe itself was open" in the office of the National Assembly Environmental Labor Committee.

However, it is said that they were spared their words because they were investigating why this valve was open or whether they were not locked.

This accident seems to be the most important issue in the future when it comes to legal disputes.

There will be a total of 4 cases.

1) The piping that leaked chemicals was not actually the subject of the construction of Company A, but the work was done and the valve was not closed.

2) Although the piping that leaked chemicals was not actually the subject of the construction of Company A, the work was done and the workers of the partner companies randomly loosened the closed valve.

3) The pipe that leaked chemical substances is actually the object of the construction of Company A, but the valve was not closed.

4) A pipe with a leaked chemical substance is actually the target of the construction of Company A, but workers of the partner company randomly loosened the closed valve.

During the interview process, the reporters contacted nine business partners related to the accident.

Since these are partners of LG Display, they were very cautious to tell the reporters in the whole process of contact.

(At least, it is known that the partner companies are making a cooperative statement in the investigation of the investigative agency.)

However, LG Display's explanation that the accident piping was not the subject of the construction of Company A did not make any sense.

I asked for further clarification, but I was told'investigating'.

In particular, because it was explained that the accident piping was in charge of Company B, it was necessary to cover Company B.

After questioning, I was able to hear an explanation of the situation at Company B through various reporters.

The point is that when Company B first signed a contract for construction related to PHOTO Unit 6, it only contracted the work of inserting new pipes, but did not even sign the removal of the existing pipes.

It is said that LG Display requested the removal of the existing piping at the beginning of construction (around January 5th), and Company B requested that the related contents be discussed again because it is not in the contract.

In the meantime, Company A (the companies that Company A contracted again are the companies including Mr. Choi and Lee who were injured) once again discussed the related contents with Company B, and the work was carried out during the re-discussion process on the construction work. There was an accident.

This accident may have resulted from insufficient communication in the field.

However, officials from partner companies say, "There is no way we can do unsolicited work (touching pipes not subject to construction) at LG Display."

Even if the construction target of Company A was not covered by an accidental pipe, a safety manager and site staff from LG Display's headquarters were resident at the site at the time.

The question,'If an employee of a supplier touches a pipe that is not the subject of construction' and'if he knew that hazardous chemicals were flowing in the pipe' should have stopped immediately?   

<Continued from section ②>      

▶ [Report File] Reported after 25 minutes of chemical leakage, did you keep the golden time?

▶ [Reporting file] Based on chemical substances that have been the same for 19 years…

If I had only done the quick exam