100% of content is FREE to anyone and everyone with a VALID business e-mail address than can be confirmed.
CLICK HERE for FREE MEMBERSHIP
PLEASE NOTE that EVERYTHING will soon REQUIRE a FREE membership
MEMBERS AREA UPDATE on 3/26/2016 - 426 photos added
Over 13,300 exclusive unsafe acts/conditions and accident/injuries photos
and over 1,300 ppt's & doc's from more than 2,827 contributors!
MANY THANKS to my NEW and RENEWING "Partner in Safety" for their support!
Both OSHA and EPA require PSM/RMP facilities, more specifically covered process(s), have a QA program within their Mechanical Integrity (MI) Program...
1910.119(j)(6) Quality assurance.
1910.119(j)(6)(i) In the construction of new plants and equipment, the employer shall assure that equipment as it is fabricated is suitable for the process application for which they will be used.
1910.119(j)(6)(ii) Appropriate checks and inspections shall be performed to assure that equipment is installed properly and consistent with design specifications and the manufacturer's instructions.
1910.119(j)(6)(iii) The employer shall assure that maintenance materials, spare parts and equipment are suitable for the process application for which they will be used.
Seems pretty straight forward right? Well the state of Nevada, which has NOT officially been "delegated enforcement" has a really nice inspection checklist. And in this inspection checklist it contents the following questions for the EPA inspector to ask of the facility. How would your MI QA program fair against these questions?
If you're using the desktop version of CAMEO Chemicals already, you can use the automatic update feature to get the latest version. When CAMEO Chemicals tells you a new version is available, you have the option to let the program download and install the new version for you automatically as a replacement for your current version.
What's changed in CAMEO Chemicals 2.6?
Does 1910.134 require a separate fit test for each harness where respirator wearers are required to use different harnesses, depending on their job task?
Background: You’ve pointed out that in some workplaces, employees may be required to wear a different harness on the same manufacturer’s model facepiece and sealing surface for different work scenarios such as different work modes (negative vs. positive pressure) or for flame and heat protection. During our meeting, we discussed... One respirator model has two harness options that connect to the same attachment points on the facepiece and adjust in the same manner but are made of different material (i.e., rubber or Kevlar®). Another model has either a five-point or a four-point head harness option, but the facepiece only has four attachment points.
Question: Does OSHA’s Respiratory Protection standard require a separate fit test for each harness where respirator wearers are required to use different harnesses, depending on their job task?
Who sees it?
I just hope I can convince other safety professionals that atmospheric storage tanks containing flammable liquids are EXTREMELY DANGEROUS and deserve our respect when it comes to DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, FACILITY SITING, and MAINTENANCE (e.g. MI), and RELIEF PROTECTION. I recently had a lawyer attempt to make an argument that if these tanks were so dangerous then why did OSHA exempt them from their PSM standard? Yeah lets let politics protect us from this...
NOTE: this was a waste water tank at a fracking site so it was not even a pure flammable liquid! Launch takes place around the 30 second mark of the video.
CLICK HERE to see the dramatic High Res photos of this event.
Complainant alleges that Respondent violated the provisions identified herein and seeks the assessment of a civil penalty. Respondent owns and operates a refinery. At all times relevant to this action, Respondent processed, handled. and stored regulated flammable substances listed in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130 in a mixture at its facility. At all times relevant to this action, Respondent had eight covered processes at its facility, which are referred to as:
OSHA has issued 14 serious violations ($80,000) after an October 2015 complaint investigation found the manufacturer and distributor of chemicals used in a variety of industries including manufacturing, water treatment and oil and gas violated OSHA's PSM standard. Here is a breakdown of the citations:
The much anticipated 2016 ERG (well it was for HAZMAT folks) is now available for download in Portable Document Format (pdf).
The file size is 12700 KB.
See below for changes from the 2012 edition...
Intrinsically SAFE instrumentation MATTERS (digital pressure gauge caused explosion that severed arm)
A postdoctoral researcher was combining 70% hydrogen, 25% oxygen, and 5% carbon dioxide gases from high-pressure cylinders into a lower pressure tank when an explosion occurred that severed her right arm just above the elbow. The gas mixture was “food” for bacteria being used to produce biofuels and bioplastics. She was working for the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute under another researcher. In a 2013 paper by the supervising researcher, it shows a similar set-up in which gases are plumbed through a mixing device directly into the bioreactor (Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2013, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.04.153). The gas gauge identified in that paper was an “intrinsically safe” model designed for use with flammable gases. But after the postdoctoral researcher started in the lab last fall, she purchased a 49-L steel gas tank, a DIFFERENT gauge, one that was NOT rated as intrinsically safe, a pressure-relief valve, and fittings, and she put them together. She told fire department investigators, she would add the gases to the portable tank, which would then be connected to the bioreactor. In the week before the incident, a similar set-up with a 3.8-L tank resulted in a “small internal explosion” when she pressed the OFF button on the same type gauge. She also occasionally experienced STATIC SHOCKS when touching the 3.8-L tank, which was NOT grounded. She reported the shocks and possibly the small explosion to the supervising researcher, who told her not to worry about it. On the day of the incident, the 49-L tank exploded when she pressed the OFF button on the gauge.
The University of Hawaii hired the University of California Center for Laboratory Safety to independently investigate the incident. That report is expected to be completed by the end of this month. The Hawaii Occupational Safety & Health Division is also investigating the incident.
CLICK HERE for the FULL Honolulu Fire Department Report which contains scene photos and more valuable data.