SAFTENG Safety Info Posts SAFTENG Safety Info Posts
OSHRC affirms HAZCOM and LOTO citations at chicken processing plant
Safety Info Posts - OSHA Compliance Posts
Written by Bryan Haywood   
Sunday, 12 October 2014 21:04

Citations issued for health and safety violations were affirmed by an administrative law judge from the independent OSHRC, upholding an earlier decision by the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The violations occurred at the company's chicken processing plant. OSHA cited the plant in May 2012 for a variety of safety and health hazards, including failure to provide employees with information and training about the hazards of products that contain peracetic acid and bleach, as required by OSHA's hazard communication standard. Violating OSHA's lockout/tagout standard, the company also failed to train production workers whose operations included servicing and maintenance of machines that could unexpectedly start up. Judge Coleman found the employer had failed to train production workers on the hazards of chlorine bleach and Perasafe, an antimicrobial agent containing peracetic acid, hydrogen peroxide and acetic acid, used to disinfect chicken carcasses. The judge noted in his decision that employees told the OSHA compliance officer that they had experienced respiratory ailment symptoms and rashes consistent with the exposure symptoms described in the manufacturer's safety data sheets for Perasafe and chlorine bleach. The judge also found that that the company's machine maintenance procedures were overly general, lacking sufficient detail to provide employees with the steps to protect themselves from amputation and laceration hazards while servicing equipment. Moreover, production workers were not given basic training on how to avoid injuries when service and maintenance work was needed. Two employees were injured when attempting to clear jams on equipment without knowledge of proper procedures.   OSHRC Docket Number: 12-1165 & 12-1269

Last Updated on Sunday, 12 October 2014 21:18
OSHA PSM citations @ BPA Plant (BPA & $134,000)
Safety Info Posts - PSM and RMP Citations/Analysis
Written by Bryan Haywood   
Sunday, 12 October 2014 20:27

Following the death of an employee, 61, OSHA has cited the chemical manufacturer for 21 serious and two other-than-serious safety violations. Many of the violations involve OSHA's Process Safety Management Standards. The company has been placed in OSHA's Severe Violator Enforcement Program. OSHA's investigation found the employee suffered fatal injuries on April 4, 2014, while clearing a blockage on the drain line to a reactor. An expansion joint failed and caused a thermally heated chemical mixture to spew onto the employee. The mixture predominately contained Bisphenol A, commonly known as BPA, and hydrochloric acid, acetone and phenol, used in the manufacture of resins, flame retardants and coatings. The inspection found plant officials failed to ensure misaligned pipes and expansion joints were repaired properly and adequate safety shields were installed before placing the reactor back in service. The company also failed to develop procedures for normal and emergency shutdown of the BPA reactor; address hazards for expansion joint failure; develop written procedures to maintain equipment used to process chemicals during maintenance; and train workers to install flexible expansion joints and associated equipment properly. In addition, the company failed to conduct required inspections and maintain accurate inspection records; provide personal protective equipment, including clothing, boots, safety goggles and head coverings; and train workers to identify and handle hazardous chemicals. OSHA has proposed fines of $134,000.  Here is the breakdown of the PSM citations:

Last Updated on Sunday, 12 October 2014 20:59
WISER for iOS 3.1.1 Released & Important Ebola Resources
Safety Info Posts - Emergency Response
Written by Bryan Haywood   
Friday, 03 October 2014 19:23

WISER for iOS Update

WISER for iOS 3.1.1 is now available.  This new release provides full support for iOS 7 and above, introducing a new look and feel to match the latest iOS release.  To find out “What’s New,” click here

WISER for iOS can be downloaded and installed directly from the Apple App Store:

Coming Soon

Getting in is ALWAYS easier than getting out! (Video)
Safety Info Posts - Permit Required Confined Spaces
Written by Bryan Haywood   
Wednesday, 01 October 2014 20:39

A point we try to stress in our PRCS Entry and Rescue courses is that it is almost always easier to get into a small opening than it is to exit that same opening.  There are many variables at play during an entry that make this a fact and this video does an excellent job showing how egress can be a challenge.  This video demonstrates why almost all Confined Space Standards/Codes specifically address EGRESS from the space, as well as why an entry over 5' in the vertical direction REQUIRES a mechanical advantage.  This video was shot in Afghanistan, but the same laws of physics apply world-wide - although we have been told some facilities can defy the laws of physics!!!!

PLEASE NOTE:  Using a powered device such as a crane, as shown in this video, can be EXTREMELY DANGEROUS and is NOT advised without the proper safety controls and training in place.

MANY THANKS to "Chuck" for pointing me to this video and his service to this great nation!

Last Updated on Monday, 06 October 2014 21:12
How NOT to haul an industrial LPG tank! (Video)
Safety Info Posts - Hazardous Materials
Written by Bryan Haywood   
Wednesday, 01 October 2014 19:53

Last Updated on Monday, 06 October 2014 21:12
How NOT to manage a Propane Release scene! (Video)
Safety Info Posts - Emergency Response
Written by Bryan Haywood   
Wednesday, 01 October 2014 19:15

Just when we think we have seen it all, someone rises to the occasion to demonstrate the bottom of the barrel must be a bottomless pit!  Folks, this is so wrong I can not imagine the fire company publishing it on Youtube.  Maybe it was a citizen with a cell phone... but how could a citizen be standing that close? Check out the wind direction, look up the vapor density of propane, look up the LEL of propane and see if you can figure out what is so horribly wrong with this response.  Can anyone tell where the hot zone ends and the warm zone begins?  I am at a loss... and the person in the fluorescent green shirt... well it is a "safety colored shirt" so he/she must be safe!  For petes sake someone throw them a 2012 DOT ERG!!!!!

Last Updated on Monday, 06 October 2014 21:12
EPA RMP Citations @ a propane wholesale distributor (LPG; $21K)
Safety Info Posts - PSM and RMP Citations/Analysis
Written by Bryan Haywood   
Wednesday, 01 October 2014 13:52

Respondent is the owner and/or operator of a facility which stores liquid propane ("LP") for wholesale distribution. Respondent filed an RMP for the Facility with EPA on or about October 18, 2013 that identified a covered propane process at the Facility as a Program 3 process, and that specified a quantity of 822,500 pounds of propane for this process. EPA conducted an inspection of the Facility on or about April 8, 2014 to assess compliance with Section 112(r) of the Act and the applicable regulations, including those listed in 40 C.F.R. Part 68 (the "Inspection"). 

Last Updated on Wednesday, 01 October 2014 14:18
EPA RMP Citations @ a cheese plant (NH3; $88K)
Safety Info Posts - PSM and RMP Citations/Analysis
Written by Bryan Haywood   
Wednesday, 01 October 2014 13:31

Respondent has a Program 3 covered process, as defined in 40 C.F.R. § 68.1O(d), using Anhydrous ammonia. 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a) and (d) require that, in addition to submitting a single RMP as provided in §§ 68.150 to 68.185, facilities with a Program 3 covered process shall among other things, develop a management system as provided in § 68.15, conduct a hazard assessment as provided in §§ 68.20 to 68.42, and implement the prevention program as required of 68.65 to 68.87.  Here are the specifics:

Last Updated on Wednesday, 01 October 2014 13:52
Interesting RV replacement schedule for PV’s holding NH3 in WI
Safety Info Posts - Chemical Process Safety (PSM/RMP)
Written by Bryan Haywood   
Wednesday, 01 October 2014 07:14

This week, I began working on a process design review project for a client looking to build a facility in the state of WI. This facility will use Anhydrous Ammonia within the facility and SAFTENG was hired to ensure compliance with the design and installation/construction of their Anhydrous Ammonia process. As part of the project, SAFTENG performed a code/standard review for the state of WI. In this review I came across the WI state code for SPS 343.10, ANHYDROUS AMMONIA which contains an interesting caveat regarding RV replacements.

Last Updated on Wednesday, 01 October 2014 08:05
Portable Extinguishers: Monthly Inspections (USFA)
Safety Info Posts - Emergency Response
Written by Bryan Haywood   
Tuesday, 30 September 2014 14:49

Screen Shot 2014-09-30 at 3.25.09 PMNational Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 10, Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers requires portable extinguishers to be inspected when they are installed and at intervals of not more than 30 days thereafter. Inspections may be performed manually — as illustrated here — or through an electronic monitoring system. Manual inspections may be performed by the property owner or occupant. The periodic inspection or electronic monitoring of fire extinguishers should include a check of at least the following items:

EPA RMP Citations @ a chemical manufacturing, warehouse, and distribution facility (NH3, CL2, GDC; $114K)
Safety Info Posts - PSM and RMP Citations/Analysis
Written by Bryan Haywood   
Monday, 29 September 2014 21:04

This CAFO resolves the following CAA violations that Complainant alleges occurred in conjunction with Respondent's storage and handling of hazardous substances at its facility:

  1. Failure to prepare and submit a Risk Management Plan that includes all covered processes, in violation of 40 C.F.R. §68.12(a) and 68.150(a);
  2. Failure to comply with process safety information requirements, including documentation of compliance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, in violation of 40 C.F.R.§ 68.65 and/or 68.48; 
  3. Failure to comply with operating procedures requirements, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.69; and 
  4. Failure to design and maintain a safe facility, in violation of the General Duty Clause, Section 112(r)(l) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(1).
Last Updated on Monday, 29 September 2014 21:28

Page 2 of 2

wreck it all 

Members Usage Guide


 Please Support My

Partners in Safety!








Some of Our Key Clients

What They Are Saying About Us...

Recently, Bryan performed some PSM related consulting work at one of our power plants. He has also done work for us in the area of confined space and emergency response consulting and training. To say that Bryan has an extensive knowledge of these three topic matters completely undersells him. He...

A.J. DeRose, CSP Sr. Health & Safety Administrator - Corporate
Date: Aug 12, 2011