UPDATED FREE Mine Safety Section with 21 Documents
Continuing to work on the Photo Database, adding categories so searching for the right photo is easier.
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"
Friday, 1/30/15, is the last business day before we have to:
Here's the specifics...
An OSHA PSM investigation at a nationwide chemical manufacturer and distributor produced 11 serious violations with penalties totaling $60,500. One of the hazards identified was formaldehyde, which is manufactured for use in various industrial applications and products. The July 16, 2014, inspection found that the facility’s standard operating procedures did not contain accurate information on safety systems and how they worked. The facility’s PHA failed to address many issues in the plant. In addition, employees were not trained in changes to these processes, and inspections and equipment testing were not completed as scheduled.
Here is a breakdown of the citations:
Now that the OSHA website is back up and running, a new LOI has appeared dated 12/16/14. This LOI is timely because it clarifies the two new "reportable injuries": amputation and loss of an eye. An amputation, for OSHA reporting purposes, is defined under section 1904.39(b)(11); however, "loss of an eye" had a lot of us wondering what that means. OSHA says "Loss of an eye" is the physical removal of the eye, including enucleation and evisceration. Loss of sight without the removal of the eye is NOT (emphasis added) reportable under the requirements of section 1904.39. A case involving loss of sight that results in the in-patient hospitalization of the worker within 24 hours of the work-related incident is reportable. CLICK HERE for the full LOI.
WARNING! This video may be upsetting to some viewers, NO GRAPHIC images but it is a VERY SERIOUS accident caught on tape - Viewer Discretion is advised. VOLUME WARNING - Turn DOWN your volume as the "F" bomb rightfully gets dropped after this accident!
CLICK on "Read More" below for the full size image
Have you ever seen fire extinguihers with an HMIS or NFPA Label? Did you think to yourself... hmm do fire extinguishers fall under HAZCOM? If the OSHA website was up I would provide a link to the LOI discussing this very topic; however, it seems to be a mute point now that the OSHRC has stated Fire Extinguisher are exempt from 1910.1200 because they are "consumer products". Here's what they said...
Those of you that visit SAFTENG often know that I love the FM Global Data Sheets! These data sheets are NOW FREE (and have been for a couple of years). They serve as a GREAT AID in helping facilities understand their hazards and risks associated with all kinds of industries. In fact, although my practice is not endorsed by Global FM, I point clients to these data sheets when an employer will not purchase costly consensus standards, as often times FM Global has a "data sheet" that will address the fundamental issue the consensus standard addresses. Case in point... this week the Chemical Safety Board published a Safety Alert: Anhydrous Ammonia Safety Bulletin - Five Key Lessons to Prevent Hydraulic Shock (CSB). As with most CSB publications this alert is getting shared widely among the ammonia refrigeration industry and this is a GOOD THING; but did you know that FM Global's Data Sheet 12-61, Mechanical Refrigeration had already brought to light the scenario that the CSB Alert did. Here is what FM Global's Data Sheet 12-61, Mechanical Refrigeration Case Study #6 says...
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Safety Alert No. 314 - Operator Electrocuted Trying to Charge a Battery
On a drilling rig offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, an operator for a cementing contractor was trouble shooting an electronic instrument failure. He suspected a discharged battery in a battery box was the problem. He plugged a wheeled battery charger (like those in all service stations) into a three-prong extension cord carrying household 115V current, and was killed by electrocution. A BSEE Panel investigated the incident and determined that the extension cord was shorted in its female end with the ground wire burned off. This allowed a hot wire from the extension cord to connect with the ground wire of the battery charger. The ground wire of the battery charger then energized the metal case and when the operator knelt on a wet deck and touched the battery charger case, current passed through his hand to his knee, stopping his heart. The root causes of this fatality lie with: