The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is issuing this safety advisory concerning pressure relief devices (PRD) that were not manufactured or intended for use on cargo tank motor vehicles. PRDs are an integral part of the safety mechanisms for U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) specification cargo tank motor vehicles and are vital to ensuring the safety of hazardous materials transportation by highway.
The Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of State Fire Marshal (SFM) has recently completed training modules highlighting significant changes from the 2007 version to the 2011 version of the Ohio Fire Code (OFC). You can access the modules via links on the SFM’s website “2011 Ohio Fire Code Training Modules”. There you will find links to the International Code Council’s Campus (ICC) (where the modules are housed), a tutorial regarding how to create an account with the ICC and access the 2011 Ohio Fire Code Training Modules, and how to receive a certificate for completing the courses. There is also a technical support phone number for the ICC, and contact information for the SFM where you can provide feedback regarding the modules.
The Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) today announced a landmark set of regulations to strengthen workplace and environmental safety at oil refineries across the state. The regulatory proposals are intended to make California refineries safer both for workers and surrounding communities. The two regulations implement key recommendations of the Governor’s Interagency Working Group on Refinery Safety, and are the result of a multi-year effort, including extensive consultation with workers, industry, NGOs, and communities, following a serious chemical release and fire at Chevron’s Richmond oil refinery in August 2012. The proposal includes two complementary regulations...
As I have said in the past, the National Board publishes a FREE magazine, The Bulletin, each quarter that almost always contains information that we can use in our daily management of chemical processes. The best part of these FREE articles are they come from a VERY RELIABLE source and are written in such a manner that we do not have to be Professional Engineers (PE) to understand them! This edition has an outstanding article regarding the Inservice Testing for Pressure Relief Valves.
FY 2016 U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board Management Challenges (EPA Office of Inspector General)
Attention to CSB management challenges could result in stronger results and protection for the public, and increased confidence in management integrity and accountability. Based on our continuous audit work, CSB public hearings, congressional hearings and CSB board meetings, EPA's IG identified three (3) management challenges and one internal control weakness related to operational controls. The newly confirmed Chairperson has implemented initiatives to improve employee morale by creating an environment to encourage open communication.
Respondent operates a meat processing facility that uses 24,300 pounds of ammonia as its refrigerant. Respondent has one RMProgram level 3 covered process, an ammonia refrigeration process, which stores or otherwise uses a toxic chemical in an amount exceeding its applicable threshold of 10,000. During calendar year 2014, EPA opened an RMProgram compliance monitoring investigation to determine Respondent's compliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 68. As part of this investigation, the EPA conducted an onsite inspection of RMProgram related records on May 22, 2014. The focus of the onsite inspection was to assess the Respondent's compliance with RMProgram requirements for its covered process.
On October 29, 2009, Employee #1 was performing pressures tests on 30-pound fire extinguisher bodies, using a test machine run in automatic mode. Employee #1 loaded four bodies/cylinders into the machine and started the test cycle by activating the two-hand control. The machine submerged the fire extinguishers into a water bath, and the bodies were to be pressurized to approximately 640 psi. As Employee #1 was observing for water bubbles, which indicated that the body did not pass the pressure test, one fire extinguisher body ruptured. The 0.375-inch-thick Lexan cover/guard, used as an observation port, blew apart. Piece(s) of the cover/guard and/or air pressure struck Employee #1 in the face and head. Employee #1 sustained multiple facial fractures and was hospitalized.
On September 24, 2010, Employee #1 was standing five feet away from a pressure test being conducted with nitrogen. Inside the test, the cylinder was a downhole tool used in oil and gas production. For unknown reasons, the tool inside the test cylinder exploded knocking the threaded end cap off the test cylinder. The explosion caused the straps holding the test pipe to break, allowing the testing stand to fall over. The test pipe flew back off the test stand towards the inside of the shop, and as the test pipe flew off the test stand, it struck Employee #1 in the torso. Employee #1 died due to the injuries.
The new T/O program formalizes the “Test Only” process by providing National Board certification to organizations conducting in-service testing of pressure relief valves. The program includes an adjustment for restoring nameplate set pressure and provides customer and inspector confidence in testing capabilities. T/O Certificates of Authorization will be extended to current VR certificate holders. New applicants can obtain a T/O Certificate of Authorization by meeting program requirements. For more information, click here or refer to the following articles in the summer 2016 issue of the BULLETIN: Inservice Testing for Pressure Relief Valves on page 6, and T/O Program for National Board-Certified Testing Organizations – A New Mark of Quality, on page 8.
As a result of a 2012 inspection, Respondent was cited for five repeat violations, which were issued on March 27, 2013. The citations upon which the repeat violations were based were issued to Wynnewood Refining while owned and operated by Gary Williams Energy (GWE), most of which became final orders of the Commission in April of 2007. Respondent contends that the present citations are not properly characterized as repeated on three separate bases...