Over 12,300 exclusive unsafe acts/conditions and accident/injuries photosand over 1,300 ppt's & doc's from more than 2,782 contributors!
Many THANKS to my NEW and RENEWING "Partners in Safety"
On Sept. 2, 2014, OSHA initiated an inspection of a petroleum refinery after a fire occurred in a heater at the facility, used to process crude oil. The refinery sustained some minor damage but no injuries were reported. OSHA initiated the investigation under its National Emphasis Program for Process Safety Management at refineries. Here is the breakdown of the citations:
MARPLOT 5.0.1 is now available for download at http://www2.epa.gov/cameo/marplot-software.
What's changed in MARPLOT 5.0.1?
Note: If you're upgrading to MARPLOT 5.0.1 from a previous version, follow the instructions on the download page to ensure that your data is transferred successfully to the new version.
In the world of process safety we have Safe Upper and Lower limits on a lot of common process parameters, such as pressures, levels, temperatures, etc. Flows on the other hand are quite often over looked as a critical process parameter and when your HHC/EHS is a non-conductive flammable liquid both FLOW and LEVEL must be addressed within the facility’s PSI and SOPs. This article will discuss how safe upper limit on flow and safe lower limit on level can play a huge roll in improving flammable liquid safety and quite possibly PSM/RMP compliance.
Anyone notice anything a bit odd about this shipment of HAZMAT? Even though this is a problem, it is one of my proudest moments as a Safety Professional. My 10 year old son spotted this on I-275 here in our town of Milford, OH. Can you spot the issue?
Not a trick question, but boy do we get “the look” when we ask the question just as it is written in 68.79 and .119(o). What does OSHA and EPA mean by certifying an audit? Who does this certification? Is this a formal exercise of certifying? Why did OSHA/EPA use this term in the standard? Here is my take…
Recently OSHA.gov has been experiencing some serious issues and although it appears to have gotten almost back to normal, sometimes access to standards is lost. And if you're like me and do a lot of work in locations where there is no internet connection and you need the standards for a project, here is a FREE and simple way to have ALL of 1910, 1926, Part 68, etc. at your disposal 100% of the time. Heck the shortcuts and links even work and it is "searchable" using your browsers search function. Your computer will not even know your not on line. Here's what you do...
A lot is going on with HAZCOM this year and the biggest activity is the conversion from the old MSDSs to the new 16 section format for the SDSs. OSHA recently issued a LOI to clarify the the compliance date...
Question: When is an employer required to replace their MSDS collection with revised SDSs in order to be in compliance with HCS 2012? Would OSHA take enforcement action against employers who only have an MSDS available to employees?
Response: OSHA's final rule modifying the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) was issued on March 26, 2012, and it became effective on May 25, 2012 [77 FR 17574-17896]. Under 1910.1200(j)(2), manufacturers, importers, and distributors must be providing SDSs (instead of MSDSs) for all shipments of hazardous chemicals to employers and downstream customers by June 1, 2015. SDSs may be provided before this date; however, for any shipment of chemicals after June 1, 2015, an SDS in the required 16-section format must be provided.
All employers, per 1910.1200(g)(1) and 1910.1200(g)(8), must have, maintain, and make available to employees the most recent MSDS or SDS received from a chemical manufacturer, importer, or distributor for each hazardous chemical in the workplace. If the employer is not maintaining the most current MSDS or SDS received, then enforcement action may occur. However, OSHA would not issue citations for maintenance of MSDSs when SDSs have not been received. As OSHA explained in the January 31, 2013, letter to Mr. Joel Gregier employers may, but are not required to, contact manufacturers or distributers of products they have previously ordered to request new SDSs, and under 1910.1200(g)(6)(vi), the SDSs must be provided.
I recently participated in a PHA for a large flammable liquids process and during the "facility siting" portion of the PHA we took a detailed tour of the process. During which, several significant "impact" hazards were identified. Of course the long-time engineering manager (40 plus years of fine service at the facility) quickly went to the "its been that way for 50+ years and no one has hit the pipe/pipe support or dropped a load on the pipe/pipe support". So the question is... How much "safety credit" should we give based on a 50 year run of no damage/incidents when we can plainly see that the scenario has a high potential?